Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00253)

Too bad you can't see (blinded by all your convoluted speculative word play 
that always seems to end up by negating itself and becomong meaninless) the 
great mystery of the unknown and ineffable void behind the zero-point of 
manifestation and its surrounding fields of abstract motion -- where all scientific 
understandings of our universal origins must begin -- as absolute facts that 
belie all speculation. 

While there has to be a logical and lawful start for anything -- including t
he Cosmos -- from that point on, everything can be known to those whose minds 
are open and free enough. And that knowledge can only come about through one's 
own self devised and self determined efforts -- coupled with any useful model 
that one can accept as a symbol of that reality... And, to also be used -- 
so as to be "better able to help and teach others" -- by passing it on in a 
form that most modern students can utilize as their own basis for logical 
reasoning, as well as to understand their own fundamental origins and the unity of 
all beings. 

HPB did it beautifully with symbolic word pictures and pictorial symbols, 
although hindered by a very primitive science she had to fall back on. These 
symbols can now be reinterpreted a bit more graphically and simply (but not 
simplistically) in the new language of modern science that has now almost caught up 
with theosophy. Thus theosophy may soon be shown to be the predicator of all 
the breakthroughs in modern science and technology that came after HPB (and 
that have awakened a whole new level of our audiovisual capabilities). Thus 
theosophical primal involution and subsequent evolution can now be easily 
visualized using simple primal fields within fields, fractal diagrams that are 
"string" like cross sections of 3-D hyperspace fields -- which must be the basis of 
all physical reality prior to the breaking of symmetry and its evolution into 
our presently diverse Universe of galaxies, solar systems, planets, and 
mankind, animals, plants, minerals, along with the four elements of fundamental 
nature -- all tied together by three fundamental principles. 

Thus, the "mysteries" are all based on these fundamental principles and their 
intermediate immutable laws of karma that lead inexorably to this progression 
of the absolute relativity of our fundamental nature. Therefor, the 
macrocosm is (and must be) the mirror of the microcosm. 

When we can understand and have absorbed that progression within our own 
nature, know where we came from and where we are going, and can forget all the 
limiting words that let us talk or speculate about it, we will be truly 
enlightened. The "ultimate division of time," where one's inner self eternally 
resides, can only be approached within one's own nature using "images" only -- 
without reliance on words -- since words travel through time, change as they go, and 
eventually become meaningless jabber that distracts us from "seeing" our true 
nature. If we want to know the "truth," all we have to do is ask our self -- 
by looking within, seeing the point, and following the cyclic spirals of its 
expansion as a never ending string of primal abstract motion ("spinergy") 
traveling through time -- that, no matter what convolutions it engages in, 
endlessly loops back in and through itself, time and time again... (That is, provided 
it doesn't entangle itself permanently in a conceptual "Gordian Knot" made up 
of nothing more than words piled on words, and speculations piled on 
speculations -- with no basis in actual reality.)

So, If that "image" is who we really are, it behooves us not to forget it and 
let the meaningless words that clutter our minds take over our lives.

Exactly -- (in conformance with fundamental principles </:-)><

LHM
References:
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/yinyang.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/evolution2.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/invlutionflddiagnotate.gif
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif



In a message dated 07/20/03 8:44:49 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>LHM wrote:
>
><<For those interested in seeing how close modern 
>science is getting to confirming (as HPB predicted) the 
>metaphysics of Theosophical Cosmogenesis (as 
>geometrically and symbolically formulated in the Book 
>of Dzyan and explained in the Secret Doctrine) -- that 
>implies an infinite fractal series of involved fields 
>within fields within fields, of descending orders of both 
>energy and frequency emanating from the primal zero 
>(laya) point-instant of infinite abstract motion or 
>"spinergy"... >.
>
>If "fields within fields" is implicitly offered as having 
>anything "Higher" and "More" than some form of 
>interpretive, karmic/mayavic, dualistic/multiplistic 
>relevance (ie, no matter how "accurate" that stated or 
>implicit offering might appear to be within such 
>interpretive guidelines) then I would question such 
>offerings (in a sense): feeling that what is really going 
>on (or "Really Going On") transcends such "essentially 
>simplistic" worldview structuring. Still, if "fields 
>within fields," and the like, is seen as "useful 
>modeling" or if seen as "helpful on the path," say, then, 
>(obviously?) there would seem to be some 
>"usefullness" (ie, in whatever sense, as in "the study of 
>Theosophy") in such modeling, so ... That is, if karmic 
>tendencies are karmic tendencies ...
>
>Having said all that (and if the reader is still there ...) I 
>wonder if one might also extend what might be a 
>somewhat too one-sided approach re a too-simplistic
>view of "Higher Reality" via any science that would 
>confine, or tend to confine, that "Higher" into any 
>kind of "too simplistic" causefulness or logicality ... (ie, 
>seeing as HPB seems to have referred to such as 
>"Beness" and "Higher" and "enlightenment" as being 
>beyond the kind of causes and logic that transcend our 
>"ordinary realistics" and "ordinary," or "essentially 
>dualistic," sciences). Not that ...
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri
>