Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00561)

In a message dated 01/17/05 8:17:54 PM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:
>
>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>>> Are you therefore saying that the 1st Proposition of the Secret 
>>>Doctrine is incorrect?
>> 
>> Ha, ha. More fun and games. 

(See the rest of the commentary below) 

> No fun and games; it's actually the point I've been trying to make, and
>I kind of assumed that most of the people here were familiar with the 
>Secret Doctrine, and know that was what I was talking about.
>
> Bart

Well, I'm glad that is what you say your point is, but I have yet to figure 
out exactly what it is you are trying to say -- other than contradicting what I 
said without any claims or counter arguments that make any sense. In fact, I 
haven't the faintest idea about what you are talking about -- since you never 
answer any questions that refer to any statements or ideas about the meanings 
of the word "absolute" and the true nature and aspects of the so called 
theosophical "Absolute" -- all of which you are apparently denying without 
presenting any foundation of actual knowledge or logical argument. 

Since I'm certainly not saying it -- could it be that it's you who is saying 
the Ist proposition of the Secret Doctrine is incorrect? 

Of course the fun and games appears to be your spinning around whatever that 
point is by refusing to answer or acknowledge any of the arguments or 
questions I used to make my point -- which is NOT based on any "dead letter" 
interpretations of the Secret Doctrine or its fundamental propositions, or takes refuge 
with any authority ... But is simply the correlation and consolidation of 
everything HPB, WQJ, and all the modern and ancient masters of wisdom ever said 
about the nature of the "Absolute." 

Therefore, I think it's pointless to discuss this any further with you, and 
will leave it to most of the other people here to figure out for themselves 
which one of us knows what the Secret Doctrine is all about, and whether it is 
incorrect or not. (BTW, being incorrect is not the same as being misinterprete
d.)

Anyway, its interesting to see you still playing your word game and leaving 
out all the responses I made and questions asked with reference to your 
denials, obscurities, and non sequitur remarks. 

Too bad you've not had as much fun as I have in this (at least on my side :-) 
one pointed discussion... That, actually, all boils down to the omniscient, 
omnipresent, and omnipotent "Absolute Zero-Point" of "Absolute Space" and its 
"Absolute Abstract Motion" that, together, as "Absolute Consciousness" and 
"Absolute Matter" have infinite potentialities of finite form and expression of 
finite consciousness as well as infinite divisibility, infinite expansion and 
infinite compression... And, that, as the rootless root or primal causeless 
cause of all existent things, must be forever dual in all its aspects based on 
its own inherent existence... And be governed by its own inherent "Absolute 
Laws" of cycles and periodicity -- which must be based on the "Absolute Spin" of 
That "Absolute Zero-Point Space." Therefore, any "Absolute" reality, or 
unconditioned state of existance, can have a number of absolute aspects -- while 
simultaneously having no particular attributes. 

Beyond that, all I can agree with is that the "Absolute" one source of All, 
along with all its Absolute aspects, is no "thing" -- or as they would say in 
the Kabbala language, it's Ein Soph. However, I would add to that, that it is 
also the root of everything, and carries the memory and imagination of the 
experiences of all that ever was, is, or will become. 

It follows then, that without any one of these "absolute aspects" or with any 
deviation from their absolute inherent natures -- (as the roots of all 
potential attributes or quantities and/or qualities of infinite Universes endlessly 
coming and going, each with their own "Absolute" zero-point of origin) -- this 
particular Universe could never exist (either in connection with or 
independent of all those other Universes).

If you (or anyone else) have any argument against this outline of what the 
Secret Doctrine is really talking about, I'd be glad to hear it. 

Best Wishes,

Lenny

In a message dated 01/17/05 3:52:55 PM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:
>
>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>>> And how many monads are there?
>>>
>>> Bart
>> 
>> 
>> Just as many, absolutely -- as we can imagine... Since the Universe (and
>> whatever came out of its origin in the zero-point of absolutely infinite
>> potential) is infinitely divisible. Isn't it?

(For the full context of this message, see below.) 

> Are you therefore saying that the 1st Proposition of the Secret 
>Doctrine is incorrect?
>
> Bart

Ha, ha. More fun and games. Good try. When you haven't anything to say to 
make your oppositional point, or answer the questions asked -- take a sentence 
out of context, and come up with a blanket, non sequitur question that 
implies you know a truth (which is actually resting on authority) that your opponent 
doesn't have a clue to. 

So, my answer to your question is... Nope. But, I am saying you can't prove 
that it isn't. 

I'm also not saying that anything theosophy says is either true or false. 
All I'm doing is stating my interpretation of theosophy along with presenting a 
model of its metaphysics of emanation, involution and evolution -- which I 
accept as being a more likely explanation of fundamental reality than any other 
theory of physics or metaphysics currently accepted by science or philosophy. 
The only rules are that, whatever "Absolute" origin the interpretation or model 
is based on, it has to be entirely consistent throughout, and not violate the 
fundamental principles, break any absolute or fundamental laws of nature, or 
contradict any validly proven scientific theory -- while satisfactorily 
explaining all paradoxes and anomalies of both consciousness and matter, biology, 
physiology, psychic phenomena, etc., that cannot be explained using the 
scientific method. 

Besides, where does theosophy say that the Absolute or the zero-point of 
infinite potential isn't infinitely divisible? Do you know exactly what the 1st 
proposition really is talking about? If so, tell us. Of course, I'm sure you 
know that a "proposition" is not a statement of fact but merely a supposition. 
But, I'm absolutely certain that, whatever it is, it surely can't violate 
its own fundamental laws. Can it?

Since you haven't answered any of the other questions I asked, and you 
misinterpreted the intent and meaning of the above sentence taken out of context, 
without coming up with a valid counter argument to the original statements about 
Absolutes and Relatives that kicked it all off -- what's the point in 
continuing this thread that has deteriorated into nothing more than a play on words 
game? 

But maybe these series of questions might give others some further food for 
thought. (So it may not all be a waste of my time... or yours, if you've taken 
any. :-)

LM

-----Original Messages---------


In a message dated 01/14/05 4:00:27 PM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:

>
>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>> What's the point of such inane assertions? 
>> Are you absolutely sure you know what you are talking about? 
>> There are many absolutes... According to the American Heritage dictionary;
===========================
(Balance of previous message left out) 
In a message dated 01/11/05 8:17:34 PM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:

>Cass Silva wrote:
>> Guess what, there are other absolutes, Truth is Absolute.
>
> The next sentence is a lie.
> The previous sentence is true.
>
> Bart
=============================
> And how many monads are there?
>
> Bart

[LM] Just as many, absolutely -- as we can imagine... Since the Universe 
(and whatever came out of its origin in the zero-point of absolutely infinite 
potential) is infinitely divisible. Isn't it?

Wanna continue playing these games? :-) Chew on this...

How many absolute infinities or infinite sets are there if we infinitely 
divide infinity or an infinite set of infinities? (Ref: Cantor)

How many absolute cardinal or ordinal numbers are there between absolute zero 
and absolute infinity?

If Pi is an absolutely constant fractional number representing the ratio of 
the diameter to the radius of a circle (which I'm sure it is:-) -- how many 
absolute cardinal and ordinal numbers are there in the arithmetical expression of 
that ratio?

How many absolute radial angles of spin can there be around an absolute 
zero-point? 

If each such spin angle has an independent zero-point center, how many 
absolute zero-points can there be in an absolute zero-point? 

How many absolute zero-points can there be on a single circle of spin force 
(motion=angular momentum) of zero-diameter? 

How many on all spin angles of such circular momentum?

Doesn't theosophy teach that Parabrahm represents the "Absolute" out of which 
Brahma sprang -- and that there is a Paraparabrahm (another Absolute?) out of 
which Parabrahm sprang -- and so on in an endless series of Absolutes? 
Aren't each of them "The Absolute" with relation to its particular Cosmic 
creations? 

Is not each such universe and everything in it a reflection of the same monad 
that rested in its Absolute zero-point of origin? 

Wouldn't that make the Absolute itself (out of which this Universe sprang, 
among infinite others) a Monad that can replicate itself infinitely into or be 
descended from other series of Absolute Monads? 

Is not that primal Monad and each of its reflected Monads an absolute reality 
-- as the necessary root of everything?

(To get back to the original statement that kicked off this whole 
discussion.) Doesn't all that make it absolutely obvious that "the Absolute is relative, 
and the Relative is absolute"?

Want more questions? 

Of course, if you have valid reason to doubt or disbelieve either Theosophy, 
metaphysical reality and its logical requisites and prerequisites, or Cantor's 
infinite set mathematics, or even Mandelbrot's fractal mathematics -- what 
more is there to say -- or ask? :-)

Leonardo

P.S. I love to argue with people who think only in linear or absolute terms, 
and can't grasp that imaginary numbers are just as real as rational or 
irrational numbers... That is, if theosophy is true. (However, I don't think you 
fall entirely in that category.) <\;-)>