Theos-Talk Archives (December 2003 Message tt00382)

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.