Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00161)

Oct 15 2003

Dear Mauri:

re Duality and Theosophy


I am of the opinion that H P B's presentation of THEOSOPHY offers us a
mind-opening and a mind-revealing potential of original thinking. It is
a pretty wide vista, and may take us (as thinkers) out of the world of
confusing limitations and paradoxical contrasts we all know so well. At
least I get frustrated with the details, and try to find some simple way
of settling the mess (in my mind).

Let me say this, and perhaps I am wrong: Seems to me you are using words
to diffuse thoughts.

Where does duality come from?

What is its purpose?

Is it possible we can perceive that besides duality there has to be a
third and independent "power to perceive," both, or am I wrong?

Where does this "third" entity / power / point of view arise?

Is in Nature or solely in Man ?

What is its purpose? Has it any relation to the Mind and thinking?

Can "SPIRIT" think of , or understand "MATTER,?" and vice versa? 

Is the function of the mind to be able to identify and reflect on both? 

Does the Metaphysical concept of an ABSOLUTE BACKGROUND (as a starting
point, no matter how long ago) make sense?

Would "manifestation" in general, be a division of that "ONE?"

Possibly, might it be the source for the contrasting duality: SPIRIT
and MATTER ?

If so, then how do we, as free, creative, and independent thinkers and
"speculators" get to live and think about such things?

Why are we alive? What are our functions and duties, or are there none?

Now what about time? When did this begin? And was indefinable
"duration" before that ?

Are we not somewhere in the middle of an on-going study of "things as
they are?" And while studying and discovering, do we not also live our
lives? Why?

Are we supposed to find answers? Is this an insolvable puzzle? Great
thinkers have found and presented all kinds of answers. How can we
learn enough to rate them on logic, and value?

Or are we endlessly to speculate in a closed loop? How did we ever get
there? Do we make the "loop" or are we trapped? What tools, if any,
have we got to get out of such a trap (if we recognize it?).

If present differences and examples of duality and conflict and
misunderstandings exist, how do you think they began?

Are we to do anything about them (for ourselves, at least)?

Why should we accept anyone's point of view if we cannot prove it for
ourselves? -- even, what the Buddha is reputed to have said?

By the way, logically, (to me) duality cannot exist with a single
source.  
Add 1 + 2 and you get 3.  

If you assume the 1 is not manifesting, but an "eternal background"
that does not participate actively in "manifestation" (as THEOSOPHY
does), then 2 and 3 are by themselves, and they are unable to
describe each other.  

In duality, there is no perspective.

Geometrically, if try to place 2 parallel lines together, they never
meet but go on indefinitely in time and space. But that is not the
case, lines cross each other all the time. Only an eternal and endless
parallelism would exist. Right ?  

Does this generate the logical necessity for a 3 ? As an
independent, free, and self-knowing reference point. Is our "mind" this
" 3 " ?

In which case we have 4 : 1 = ABSOLUTE,, 2 = SPIRIT, 3 = MATTER,
and 4 = MIND (in the way I think of these, and without further
definitions).Is this possibly correct and agreeable?

Same with esoteric and exoteric. When invisible thought is made visible
by words or sounds to another, then it becomes exoteric -- no longer
"self-contained," but exposed to review and criticism or help in
improving it.

Can you help?

Best wishes,

Dallas

=====================




-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri 
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 7:43 PM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: re duality and Theosophy

Dallas wrote: <<There are in the universe 
and our world two divergent streams of life. 
One builds and constructs. It is SPIRITUAL. 
In fact the whole of manifestation is built 
on the one law of universal brotherhood -- a 
spiritual brotherhood.The other destroys 
because it is self-centered selfish and 
treats all others as strangers to be either 
feared or despised.>>

I tend to suspect that the nidanic 
(Hinayanic; see SD I page 38) "karmic 
tendency" of people in general is, in effect, 
to "exoterize" their dualistic, mayavic 
environment to the extent that various kinds 
of belief systems and elaborate "theoretical" 
and "real" models/paradigms have become "real 
over time." In other words, as long as that 
kind of "exotericism" (in terms of "reality 
making") is catered to, whether in the name 
of Theosophy, or otherwise, then there will 
be no end of duality (or "essential duality") 
for such people, in basic terms, I suspect. 
Of course, on the other hand ... Not that ... 
That is, there would seem to be no end of 
"other hands" and "not that's" on this 
particular karmc/mayavic plane, as I tend to 
see it, so I tend to suspect that as long as 
there are "Theosophists" who continue to 
split "Monads," even, and continue on as if 
Theosophy were exoteric and "essentially 
dualistic," then there will be no end of 
whatever "good/bad and in between" such 
people may "karmically create over time."

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Okay, how about "no end" at least not 
"any time soon" ... Or maybe I have it all
wrong: maybe a manvantara just SEEMS like a 
long time ... Hmm ...