Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00367)

In a message dated 03/17/03 6:25:14 AM, lyris-admin@list.vnet.net writes:

>Re: your command request
>> get theos-l 220745
>
>Here is the text of Message 220745:
>
>Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:02:22 -0500
>From: Mauri <mhart@idirect.ca>
>Subject: re: "Re: re scientizing, Leon, speculation, and ..."
>
>Leon wrote: <<Thus, everything that conditionally 
>exists in the Cosmos, (in the fundamental, triune 
>monadic forms of "coadunate but not consubstantial"
>coenergetic fields, within fields, within fields . . . of 
>consciousness) are subject to the "scientific" analysis 
>of their genesis -- covering every step of the way from 
>their zero-point origin to their ultimate macrocosmic,
>multidimensional hyperspace differentiation's (that 
>each of us, in our entirely and in all our inner "lives," 
>are microcosmic reflections of). Therefore, "as above, 
>so below" -- each human monad and its seven fold 
>nature is in exact correspondence with the Cosmic 
>monad and its nature. Those are the "scientific" facts 
>of life.>>
>
>Yes, Leon, that kind of thinking might be "true" (in 
>whatever sense...) as far as exoteric "reality" might be 
>concerned, but I don't see how the "noumenal" I was 
>referring to could "transcend" that kind of exoteric 
>reality if it can be "scientized about" in terms that, no 
>matter how you might slice them, boil down to more of 
>exoterics, so ... But then you followed that up with:

The use of the words esoteric and exoteric here, have no relevance with 
reference to the "reality" I am speaking of. It is only esoteric if you 
don't comprehend it (while a few others do). Please use those words in their 
proper context, so we might understand what you are talking about. The only 
"noumenal" is the unexpressed root of the "phenomenal." One is measurable 
and can be physically experienced, and the other is not. But, they are both 
two interdependent states of the one reality. All your ifs, ands, and buts, 
cannot change the "facts of life" as both the noumenal and the phenomenal are 
expressed or unexpressed in accord with the fundamental "scientific" laws 
that govern their inaction, action and interaction.

><<Please understand that the field "models" used to 
>picture such progressions are NOT that ultimate 
>reality... But are, simply, symbolic tools for their
>visualization and their eventual intuitive 
>comprehension -- which each individual must find 
>and "realize" for themselves. We might say, then, that
>"scientizing" and realizing are interrelated.>>
>
>Okay, in a sense ... but I tend not to go as far as 
>particularly "interrelating" "scientizing" and 
>"noumenal realizing," except maybe in a certain 
>limited sense, as when one might opt for "pathworking 
>with models" (however that might work out 
>individually). I tend to assume that the 
>experiential/esoteric pathworker (not that we're not all 
>"experiential/esoteric pathworkers" in some sense, I 
>suspect ...) isn't likely, (one might think?), already 
>"ready enough" in terms of having to some extent 
>"intuitively understood" that one's models are one's 
>temporary tools, or "karmic leftovers," and, as such, 
>don't have any intrinsic reality/value beyond their 
>"apparent usefulness," (not that "apparent usefulness" 
>can't be useful enough, in real enough terms, in many 
>cases, but/"but"...) ...

What did you say? Or, are you just circling around, speculatively, and 
eventually agreeing with me? Let me repeat. Models (such as my ABC field 
theory and fractal field diagrams) have no intrinsic reality other than 
offering temporary assistance in visualizing what can only be understood 
intuitively. Just seeing the model does no good. One must think about it 
and try to follow the logic of it -- until one understands that its only a 
two dimensional cross-section of a three dimensional cross-section of a 
4-dimensional cross-section of a 5-6-7-8-9-10, etc., multidimensional reality 
-- that is a single unity, empty of all dimensionality in essence, but 
forever existent in one form or another -- with infinite potentiality. 

If you can bite on that, then you won't need (or be able to find) any more 
words to talk about it. In the meantime, you might look up the definition of 
the words "coadunate" and "consubstantial" (That HPB used when she was 
speaking English :-). 

In any event, the word "scientizing" has no intrinsic meaning -- since my 
model is not scientific in the sense that it follows the rational "scientific 
method" (you might look that phrase up, too). To think so, is what prevents 
you from allowing your speculations to transcend "method" and lead you to the 
truth. Intuition is entirely irrational. It's what allows one to transcend 
the paradox between simultaneous "emptiness" and "fullness" or "one and 
many." 

The connections between the two opposites, though, still have to be 
"scientific" in the sense that they are governed by fundamental laws of 
Nature that may be beyond the rules of conventional "scientific" 
investigation. (Although, not beyond the rules of non conventional 
mathematics.)

By the way, not being able to understand this, is the first step toward the 
"realization" of it. That's why speculations which are based on reasoning, 
gets in the way of transcendental understanding -- or should I say, 
"comprehension" or "knowing"? (Although, irrational speculations can 
sometimes lead to the truth.)

>This latest offering from you, Leon, seems to suggest to 
>me that, even though you seem to know about the 
>limits of "scientizing," you still seem to occasionally 
>come across to me with some of your word choices AS 
>IF you might be missing something or other about the 
>"differences" ("in a sense" that can't really be 
>exoterized "clearly enough"!?) "between exoteric and 
>esoteric." So, as compared to Gerald's word choices, I 
>tend to scratch my head more often when reading your 
>posts, Leon. 

What are the "differences"? Esoteric and exoteric usually refers to 
religious teachings. As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't give a damn about 
how such teachings are labeled. Besides, what has that got to do with under
standing the nature of both conditioned and unconditioned reality with 
respect to absolute reality -- whether intellectually or intuitively? Either 
you see the differences (and their unity) or you don't. All I can do is talk 
about it the way that I see it, and try to explain it from a scientifically 
logical point of view. Some people catch on real quick. Some don't. It's 
nothing more than food for thought. Everyone thinks differently. That's why 
some people are creative thinkers and other's are willing to accept other 
people's conclusions. So, how you interpret it is your business. If you 
think that using Sanskrit words, or Buddhistic platitudes, tells it better 
than my plain English (and diagrammatic) discourse -- then go for it. 
Actually, when you scratch your head more often it means you are thinking, so 
I'll keep on using my choice of words and hope you can figure out the 
differences for yourself. 
BTW, what I see in my mind's eye is "esoteric." But, what I write down about 
it can only be "exoteric." (Hope that takes those two words out of the 
conversation from here on out. :-)

>I wonder what Gerald might think about this March 
>16 "Re: re scientizing, Leon, speculation, and ..." post 
>from you, Leon.

So, ask him. Maybe he can explain it for you better than I can. If so, and 
you get it -- all well and good. Then you can stop speculating on what's 
esoteric or exoteric or what's Maya and what isn't, and start speculating on 
what you can do with your new understandings to make it a bit clearer for 
others to comprehend. That is. if they can't get it from what I relate about 
it. :-)

Possibly,
LHM
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/invlutionflddiagnotate.gif
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

>Speculatively,
>Mauri
>
>PS And not to worry, I still have lots of hair left over 
>to scratch off!