Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00164)

Leon, in response my "shells and monads 
in Theosophy" post, you wrote, in part:

<<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?) >>

I thought I offered enough qualifiers to 
show that I was referring to a 
particular sense or perspective, (rather 
than trying to rewrite Theosophy, as you 
might be seen to suggest ...) as eg per 
my <<(or "monadics," in a sense),>>, 
and, and, and ... But, you have a point, 
Leon. My qualifiers often enough seem 
to go over like lead balloons, 
apparently. Sorry about that. What can I 
say ... I guess we all tend to figure 
things out in our own various ways.

<<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)?>>

I don't know which Leon wrote that 
paragraph, but I tend to agree with him. 
^:-)

<<As I see it, If all reality or truth 
is based on fundamental abstract motion 
s 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. 
ee: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>>

Interesting exoterizing. I think I 
responded to that last senstence already 
to some extent ...

Speculatively,
Mauri