Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00160)

Where's the sense in all that confusing jargon? Of course, any physical 
(verbal, diagrammatic, mathematical, modeled, etc.) explanation of a metaphysical 
truth is exoteric. But why conflate the description of the monad itself with 
karmic/mayavic? (And, how do those two terms relate in this context?) 

It seems obvious to me that all metaphysical truths are esoteric and can only 
be intuited through one's own center of consciousness that looks directly on 
ideas... While their exoteric explanations (no matter in what forms they are 
presented) can only be taken as symbolic representations of those truths -- not 
the truths themselves. Therefore, those explanations are important simply as 
an aid to our understanding, as well as a guide or pointer in the direction 
we should be looking with our inner eye. If not, why would the Masters along 
with HPB take all that time and effort to write the Secret Doctrine to explain 
esoteric truths? Isn't it obvious that once written and illustrated such 
explanations are no longer esoteric (except, of course, to the "intuitive student" 
who can directly experience their underlying reality)?

As I see it, If all reality or truth is based on fundamental abstract motion 
as the root of all forms of matter-energy, and if that motion is circular in 
nature ("spinergy") within the non dimensional zero or laya point of Absolute 
Space -- then the emanated or manifest monad (that is the first fundamental 
configuration of that manifest energy in spherical or dimensional space) must be 
both a unity and a trinity... Since, energy or space in motion -- to become 
globular (as a "field" of action) yet still be connected with its central 
zero-point of origination -- must initially form two globes within a surrounding 
globe... With the linear flow of energy following a continuously repeating 3 
cycle, Mobius-like spiral vortex path around the surfaces of the singular outer 
globe and two inner globes -- appearing like a figure eight inscribed within a 
circle. See:
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

The fact that this triune Monadic form continues to involve and evolve (due 
to its karma or action potential) in descending frequency-energy orders of 
octaval progressions that are constantly changing -- is the basis of Maya, or the 
illusion (to the rational mind) of the unchanging permanence of each 
iteration. 

That, of course, doesn't negate the reality of the triune monad itself, nor 
the seven fold nature of all sentient beings -- irrespective of their 
changeability or impermanence of outward form. 

So, to conflate the description or esoteric comprehension of the monad 
itself, with its karmic action or mayavic perception, is a categorical error similar 
to mixing the physical nature of an apple with its acceleration when it falls 
out of a tree (to bounce off Newton's head and spark his understanding of the 
theory of gravity ;-).

Or, could it be that you are confusing the shell with the egg?

Questioningly,
Leonardo

In a message dated 06/20/04 11:08:48 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Seems to me that "sense making" in 
>various senses could be seen as a kind 
>of monadizing or unifying activity or 
>approach inasmuch as it's seen in the 
>sense of an interpretive activity with 
>the objective of creating "workable 
>models" as if they could be 
>"sufficiently defined within whatever 
>reality/truth parameters" as if notions 
>about Maya were irrelevant during such 
>defining, life making, worldview making, 
>sense making, as if such 
>theoretics/worldviews amounted to real 
>or "real enough" shell-like modules. 
>I'm not saying that such 
>worldview-making doesn't amount to or 
>involve something "real enough" (ie, 
>"obviously enough I'm here," still 
>worldviewing/speculating, aren't I ... 
>^:-/ ...), but seems to me that belief 
>structures on this planet, in general, 
>might be seen in terms of representing 
>"karmic/mayavic" shell-like/protective 
>structures (or "monadics," in a sense) 
>and reifications that Theosophy might 
>define as "karmic," and so seems to me 
>that what's known as as a human tendency 
>to "worldview" or "make sense" (per 
>whatever interpretive tendency) might be 
>alternately seen/interpreted as being 
>(somewhat interestingly ...) allied to 
>the apparent 
>(exoteric/mayavic/pluralistic/misleading) 
>"monads" of Theosophy---though "monad," 
>by definition, is supposed to be 
>Unitary, isn't it, to begin with, so ... 
>^:-/ ...
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri
>
>samblo@cs.com wrote:
>> Mauri,
>> Stay away from beaches, they have too many "shells" on them.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>