Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00238)

Leon,

When you speak of multidimensional realities you mean
multidimensions that are within eachother, not
adjacent to eachother. Is this correct?

Mic


--- leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com