Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00235)

Thu, 06 Feb 2003 18:34:01 -0500 Mauri <mhart@idirect.ca wrote

<Leon wrote: <<But a model can also be a true picture of
<phenomenal reality -- whenever the predictions it makes 
<leads to an experiment or observation that verifies it.>>

<Yes, but, as I tend to see it, the trueness of any model on 
<this plane is based on karmic, exoteric, manasic initial 
<assumptions and dependent arisings (!), and so all 
<realities and all models on this plane are, therefore, 
<essentially Mayavic, even though they might be seen to 
<accurately enough represent "phenomenal reality," and 
<even though some of them, or some of their derivates, 
<may have much relevance on this plane.

[LHM] Models on the phenomenal plane that are only meant to describe the 
nature of that plane can either be an accurate representation of relative 
reality or not -- depending on whether they serve the purpose they were 
designed for. A model of a plane or ship tested in a wind tunnel or a tank, 
when scaled up and flown or floated without crashing or sinking, is a 
successful model that describes the reality of the physical world. I can't 
see where karma, dependent arisings, mental assumptions, or maya has anything 
to do with it. Why confuse simplicities with irrelevant complexities? A model 
is what it is, and is as useful as the purpose it serves. 

<The cap M is intended as a reminder about the esoteric 
<nature of maya. Similarly the word "karma" might be 
<capitalized as a reminder about its esoteric meaning 

No need to point that out -- since there can only be one meaning to "Maya" or 
"Karma" in each context that they are used to describe reality, whether 
physical, mental or spiritual -- one must be extremely careful how they use 
them. 

But since such words have many meanings in their original language 
(depending on their religious or technical aspects), I'd rather use the words 
"illusion" or "misperception" or "wrong view" or "cyclic law" or 
"action-reaction" or "lawful motion", etc., to explain what I mean when 
talking about or modeling scientific reality from whatever plane or point of 
view such a model is looked at. Some models, however, are nothing more than 
symbolic teaching aids, and require one to interpret them through their own 
discriminative knowledge or intuition depending on the level of reality they 
are being applied to. Specifically, a diagram of a model on a two 
dimensional plane can never accurately describe a reality on a three 
dimensional or higher multidimensional hyperspace plane or field. HPB warned 
us about that with reference to interpreting hers and others diagrams, glyphs 
or symbols. 

<When seen from a broader/esoteric/experiential 
<perspective (in exoteric/modelistic terms, at any rate), I 
<suspect that modeling of worldviews might be seen as 
<being somewhere between, and influenced by, "aspects" 
<of "esoteric/experiential" and "aspects" of "exoteric, 
<karmic, mayavic," in the sense that such suspected (or 
<exoteric/"proven") aspects, are, (of course?), 
<interpetive/exoteric in that, (apparently?), there's a 
<"related" (if not "Really Related" ^:-) 
<"esoteric/experiential," "Itself," that can not be modelized 
<on, or limited to, this plane

You may or may not be right. In one direction of view, this seems to fit in 
with what I said above... Although, the way you mix and/or connect undefined 
Sanskrit and English word meanings, that may or may not be related in 
different contexts -- makes it very difficult to understand what you are 
talking about. It's no wonder that you constantly are ^:-) whenever you try 
to write down what you are thinking. (Now, you got me doing it <\^;-)>

<In other words, no matter how hard we humans may try 
<on this plane, in "our exoteric" terms, to be "more 
<specific" about "Reality/Truth," we keep on missing the 
<Actual Point, though we may "relevantly" enough (ie, 
<interpretively/karmically/mayavically) exoterize "around 
<it" ... Isn't that why the Esoteric Tradition tends to be 
<esoteric and confusing ...

The esoteric teachings are only confusing for those hung up in the exoteric 
interpretations and fail to use their intuition to understand a (only 
apparently) paradoxical multidimensional reality. It's very hard to describe 
such a multidimensional reality using words understood solely through our 
conditioning to think in limited dimensional or physical terms. That's the 
problem of trying to speculate about reality using terms that are not 
thoroughly defined with respect to each different point of view taken (of 
which there are at least four exotically and as many as seven esoterically). 
That's why I don't think speculation using such specifically undefined (and 
especially foreign or theosophical jargon) words in writing to others serves 
any purpose -- since they can never know the point of view taken nor the 
meaning of the words used; i.e., There are many forms of karma, many degrees 
of esotericism and exotericism, and many types of illusions or delusions. 

In my models, I always try to take each point of view and describe it without 
resort to foreign words that are not specifically defined with reference to 
whatever point of view I'm taking. Those who use or study such a model 
should always remember, however, that they could be deluded if they take one 
point of view without referring to the others simultaneously and 
experientially -- both visually and logically in thought. (I can't tell 
anyone, who hasn't full access to their trained intuition, how to do that -- 
since it requires meditative practice to convert exoteric (outer symbolic) 
teachings into esoteric (inner reality) wisdom, that can only be learned 
through one's own self devised and self determined efforts.) 

Trying to conceptualize such intuitive thought speculatively, however, using 
written words or symbolic drawings that are not sharply defined and clearly 
understood in the context they are used, can easily lead to hopeless 
confusion and drowning in Maya (illusion-delusion) to the detriment of one's 
Karma (actions-reactions) and Dharma (path to enlightenment).

Hopefully not,
LHM

<Speculatively,
<Mauri