theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

re Leon , ABC's, science and Theosophy

Dec 28, 2003 07:40 AM
by Mauri


Leon wrote: <<Yes, the "causative" planes cannot be literally pictured or schemed by drawings or mental concepts limited to the "effective" planes we can observe through our physical senses. However, such images can be symbolically or figuratively interpreted in our higher intuitive mind so as to comprehend, analogously, the actual interplay and correlation of positive and negative forces between all the planes and within each adjacent field of consciousness. This true intuitive comprehension is made possible because their basic field forms -- (while in different hidden hyperspace dimensions that are coadunate but not consubstantial, yet still relatively "physical" or material) -- are always spherical.>>

I tend to agree, to an extent, in a sense, and suspect that there might be a kind of sphericality of reasoning that people, in general, might be prone to, in as much as their approach toward "defining Reality" might tend to be kind of "exoteric," dependent on descriptions and essentially dualistic logic. Not that I'm quibbling about anything much, here, exactly (or am I ^:-/...) Helpful models can, of course, be seen as helpful models, seems to me, for a start. And of course I'm not saying that my speculations, in general, don't tend to be, or can't be seen as, "essentially spherical." But I think what I MIGHT be saying (sorry about my speculative uncertainties) is that there might be a kind of dividing line, or crossroads, in one's "Theosophical studies," say, that one might, at some point, come to, and find oneself deciding between some "comparatively more-direct route," such as might be seen by way of a certain kind of "just being" meditation, or taking some "comparatively more exoteric route" that might be seen (by some, maybe?) as somewhat more theoretical ("more exoteric") than "more direct," comparatively speaking---ie, not that Paths, and one's approaches toward Path making, aren't largely, (if not quite "essentially," maybe, in a sense?), exoteric, for the most part, (or "large part"?), maybe, in most cases, (ie, in terms of: aside from whatever occultish/esoteric experiences), seems to me, but I seem to suspect that some approaches might be seen, by some, as somewhat "more direct" than others, maybe.

<<However, such images can be symbolically or figuratively interpreted in our higher intuitive mind so as to comprehend, analogously, the actual interplay and correlation of positive and negative forces between all the planes and within each adjacent field of consciousness. >>

That may work for you, Leon, and for so many other people, in some way, but doesn't seem to do much for me, "apparently" (not that ...), when I compare that kind of approach to the kind of "just being" that I've been referring to (or "think I've been referring to," at any rate ...) On the other hand, if one sees whatever "more scientific" approach toward "defining Reality" as in keeping with "the language of the age"... I guess that kind of thing might be seen as being part of a "karmic influence," maybe, among other things, so ...

I guess what I might be saying, among other things, might be to the effect that there might be seen to be what might be called "a cultural preference" (say?) towards making things as complicated and "scientific" as possible, (apparently?), among a fairly large number of people. It's as if people in general might be saying that things, in general, and especially in certain areas of "defined reality," might not be seen as "real enough" without complexity, or without some kind of "long way around" when it comes to "defining" (even without quotes or "too many qualifiers," I guess) certain kinds of things "realistically enough."

I'm tempted to go on limb here to predict that, even in "science," (sorry about the quotes, but I never could figure out what that word might mean "specifically enough,' for some reason; not that ...) ... anyway, I'm tempted to go on limb to predict that "even in science" there might come a time when some of the most "scientific" of theories and methods might be seen to be all too unnecessarily complicated and failure prone. Not that complications and failures don't create lots and lots of jobs, of course, (as in the auto, airline, space exploration and military industries, eg), on the other hand, so ...

w/Whatever,
Mauri

PS Sorry about the circularity, etc, of my reasoning.






[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application