theos-talk.com

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

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

re "shell-like, in a sense"...

Jun 21, 2004 07:32 AM
by Mauri




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










[Back to Top]


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