Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00167)

10/15, Dallas wrote (at least on BN-Study, 
for a start, apparently ...): <<Where does 
duality come from?>>

Maybe from a kind of falling asleep, in a 
sense, I'm guessing.

<<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?>>

I don't know, but, seeing as "exoterizing" is 
popular around here, I'm wondering if I 
should respond to that with something like: 
Hmm ... there seem to be so many models of 
reality, at least in "exoteric terms" (with 
or without quotes, I suppose).

<<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>>
-----------

Seems that there are so many exoteric 
thoughts on this plane. I wonder if 
"exoteric" should occasionally be offered in 
italics, or with quotes, especially in a 
"Theosophic context, because, (apparently?), 
the nature of a certain kind of "exoteric" 
doesn't seem (?) to go over too well in a 
number of cases (apparently?), in that its 
"meaningful contrast," say, in a sense, or 
"esoteric," doesn't seem to go over too well 
either, in a number of cases (apparently?), 
so ... ^:-/ ...

Speculatively, AND with best wishes,
Mauri

PS Dallas, ever thought about spending some 
time at a Zen monastery? I wonder how a Zen 
master might react to all those questions you 
posed in that post. I'm guessing you might 
get hit with a stick, or something like that. 
No wonder HPB introduced Theosophy to the 
West, eh? That is, at least Theosophy, as 
brough to us by HPB, is "more exoteric," in a 
sense, in that it might (she might've 
thought?) have a somewhat better chance of 
appealing to the "western" general tendency 
of scientizing and modeling in "exoteric 
terms," eh (as per Leon, eg, as I see it)... 
Well, not that my offered quotes are all 
that necessary, exactly, but/"but" ... some 
of us poor scnooks are trying to 
"communicate," as they say, so ... ^:-/ ...