Theos-Talk Archives (December 2003 Message tt00220)

	Here is at least one point I'm trying to make:

Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
> That it is
> "misleading" is also perfectly true; for the great feature of the
> day--materialism--has led the minds of our Western theosophists into
> the prevalent habit of viewing the seven principles as distinct and
> self-existing entities, instead of what they are--namely, upadhis and
> correlating states--three upadhis, basic groups, and four principles.
In addition, an important point is made:

> Algebra teaches us
> that the number of combinations of things, taken one at a time, two
> at a time, three at a time, and so forth = 2n - 1. Applying this
> formula to the present case, the number of entities evolved from
> different combinations of these three primary causes amount to 23 - 1
> = 8 - 1 = 7. As a general rule, whenever seven entities are mentioned
> in the ancient occult sciences of India in any connection whatsoever,
> you must suppose that these seven entities come into existence from
> the three primary entities; and that these three entities, again, are
> evolved out of a single entity or MONAD." (See Five Years of
> Theosophy, p. 160.)
This is a key error, but an error which, I believe, points to the 
truth. The formula 2n - 1 is wrong, because it leaves out an important 
set: The null set. However, consider what Blavatsky writes about laya 
points, or zero points. And consider recent discoveries about zero point 
energy. And consider the first stanza of Dzyan. Come to your own 
conclusions.

Bart