Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00303)

JHE writes: "...a 100 divided by 0 is also equal to 0 which is a mathematical truth. 

It has been years since I had a math class or reviewed it, but 100 divided by 0 equals infinity. I don't think it would have changed.

David B.
-------------- Original message -------------- 

> 
> Dear Dallas, 
> 
> >JHE 
> >As for TRUTH, if you mean an ultimate Truth, its very existence is a 
> >matter of debate. 
> > 
> >------------------------------------------------------------ 
> > 
> >DTB Who debated it? Why ? 
> > 
> Oh, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Comte, Kant, Nietzsche, Pierce, Popper, 
> Russell, Tarski, Tolstoy, Wittgenstein etc. etc. 
> all argued the issue in different ways. Why? Why not? 
> 
> >Are Minds incapable of encompassing and assimilating it? 
> > 
> HPB postulates and absolute Truth. However, I have never seen a 
> statement by her that ABSOLUTE TRUTH can be encompassed by the human 
> mind. Have you? 
> 
> >I thought "Manas" was described as a fragment of MAHAT -- the Universal Mind 
> >-- the "soul" and the "intellectual understanding" as a manifested 
> >reflection of "All-Wisdom," and the first aspect of Parabrahm, and Pradhana 
> >[S D II 81, 230, 378 ; S D I 75, 110, 256, 335, 373, 420, 451, 572 ] 
> > 
> >Our globe is said to be a progeny of Mahat S D I 260 -- and we, the 
> >"Manasa-putras" are its "sons" [ S D II 58-9, 103, 167, 230 ] 
> > 
> Well, this can be taken as a statement of Absolute Truth in Theosophical 
> teachings. By Absolute Truth, I mean, that which is true in all cultures 
> in all times. Other expressions of Absolute Truth may be found in other 
> religions and philosophies. For instance, in Islam: "God is Great." In 
> conservative Christianity: "God hates homosexuals." For Kant: "Act 
> only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that 
> it should become a universal law." 
> 
> Outside of philosophy and religion, Truth is also sought in mathematics, 
> science and law. Each disciplines uses different methods to achieve 
> different goals, and their truths are presupposed by the assumptions 
> which underlie each discipline. For instance, 2+2=4 is a mathematical 
> truth based upon our notions of counting. 100 divided by 0 equals 0 is 
> also a mathematical truth, but less intuitively evident. 
> 
> Other arguments for the existence of Absolute Truth are based upon 
> linguistic mind games. For instance: "There are no round squares and 
> there are no square circles." Or, to deny the existence of Absolute 
> Truth is making an Absolute statement, which proves the existence of 
> Absolute Truth. 
> 
> There is much more that I could say, but this is enough for now. 
> 
> >I have always abhorred "faith" which to me signifies: an improvable blind 
> >belief" and why should I take anything important as "true" without 
> >verification ? How do I know the assertion is AUTHORITATIVE ? 
> > 
> > 
> From my perspective, I see no difference between the Christian who 
> accepts the Bible as authoritative and the Theosophist who accepts the 
> Mahatma Letters as authoritative. Instead, I would see it in a 
> relative sense. That is: The Bible is authoritative for Christians and 
> the Mahatma Letters are authoritative for Theosophists. 
> 
> >A sense of cooperative and interactive brotherhood under impersonal and 
> >universal Law, would certainly tend to give a reasonable assurance of 
> >veracity to any proposition placed before it ? 
> > 
> >Is that not the tacit basis for all legislation and legal procedures -- and 
> >we may see this operating throughout the world ? Why should philosophy 
> >forego that advantage ? What does "common sense" say? 
> > 
> I don't believe this is the basis for all legislation and legal 
> procedures. According to my late Lawyer, American law derived from 
> British common law. In the case of Islamic law, I understand it to 
> derive from the Koran. Jewish law comes from the Torah and interpreted 
> through the Talmud. 
> 
> >Where are the "relative truths" emanating from? (knowledge of detail or 
> >measurement of differences and separateness) . 
> > 
> According to one current school of thought, relative truths are an 
> illusion caused by the fact that the predicate "is true" exists in our 
> language. 
> 
> >If we have access to a knowledge of the "ultimate units of time" and 
> >"space," we might be able to determine (approximately) what some of the 
> >"relative (mayavic) truths" are. 
> > 
> But, since we don't, the argument becomes circular. See, for instance, 
> Anselm's famous perfect island argument for the existence of God. 
> 
> >JHE 
> >As for the gold metaphor: I think that the manner of one's search 
> >depends upon one's mining techniques. I prefer an historical approach 
> >to understanding (but also like to use others too). Some prefer a 
> >phenomenological approach. Others, an essentialist approach and, still 
> >others, a post-modern approach etc. It appears that you prefer the 
> >essentialist approach. That seems to work for you. The historical 
> >approach works for me. 
> > 
> >----------------------------------------------------------- 
> > 
> >DTB I did not mean mining techniques or molding methods. I allegorized 
> >GOLD for TRUTH. 
> > 
> I got your metaphor. I am also using GOLD as a metaphor ("allegory" is 
> the wrong word here) for TRUTH. I just took it a little further. 
> 
> >Is that under the impulse of Manas or of indecisive and thoughtless, 
> >mindless Kama ? I thought we were supposed, at this period in the great 
> >cycle, to be ridding ourselves of "belief" and entering the realm of logic, 
> >reason and proof? 
> > 
> That "period" of "logic, reason and proof" began with Comte Positivism 
> in the 1850's. HPB writes against it in Isis Unveiled, by the way. 
> Today, we call this approach to truth "Modernism" or "Essentialism." 
> This approach was hierarchical in nature, and came to be questioned in 
> the 1960's when Thomas Kuhn came out with his important work "The 
> Structure of Scientific Revolutions." While "logic, reason and proof" 
> are still alive and well, they are no longer used in the old 
> hierarchical structure. However, this "manasic approach," if you want 
> to call it that, is only useful for relative truths in certain 
> applications. 
> 
> >One gets lost in detail and as you suspect my "essentialist approach" is one 
> >that strives to use the pure BUDDHI-MANAS and not the KAMA-MANAS. 
> > 
> > 
> I understand that to be your intention. However, I have never seen an 
> instance where an essentialist approach yields anything other than 
> relative truths and a blind faith in transcendent ones. Have you? 
> 
> >If BUDDHI approaches the closest to ATMA, then why not use it as best we can 
> >if we can secure some concept of its actuality and methods. [I found 
> >Patanjali's YOGA SUTRAS very helpful in this.] 
> > 
> > 
> As I understand HPB, she writes that Buddhic consciousness is only 
> achieved by one who becomes a Buddha. From my own experience based 
> upon training in Therevada Buddhist techniques (as opposed to 
> Patanjali's cryptic little book), one can enter a form of Buddhic 
> consciousness by (using my own words) focusing into a state of 
> consciousness of a nature which is pure awareness, which is formless 
> (i.e. not formed by thought). It takes a while to learn it, but it can 
> be done by anyone, it think. It is in itself very transforming. Once 
> one discovers it, everything changes. All of HPB's philosophical 
> arguments suddenly become understandable through direct experience--not 
> reason. That is the best I can explain it. 
> 
> >I am curious about the "historical method" you use? Can you share ? 
> > 
> Nothing special about it, and as I intimated earlier, I use whatever 
> approach works best for the situation. But the historical is generally 
> most useful for me. 
> To give an example: Last night I went to a town evangelical meeting 
> where the minister argued that followers of the wicca religion are 
> agents of evil forces, while Christian are agents for the forces of 
> good. The argument begins with the famous quote from Exodus, "never 
> suffer a witch to live." Therefore, God is opposed to the Wiccan 
> religion. Of course I immediately knew his statement is a bunch of 
> nonsense for a number of reasons, and can be shown to be so from a 
> number of approaches. Most convenient to me is an historical approach, 
> which go like this: The signifying Hebrew word in that passage 
> originally denoted a person who communed with the dead or with spirit to 
> gain information. They were not considered evil. It is just that the 
> writers of the book of Exodus were writing a series of laws for people 
> to follow. One item on their agenda was to discourage Jews from 
> involving themselves with Canaanite magic. When the Bible was 
> translated into Latin, the Hebrew term was (mis)translated as 
> "maleficom." Basically, one who brings harm to others by uttering 
> curses. Obvious, one term has nothing to do with the other. During 
> the time of King James, there was a belief in Witches--People who made 
> pacts with "Satan." James, was anxious to find an exterminate such 
> people, so he made sure that maleficom was translated into "witch," 
> therefore, giving him Biblical justification to exterminate Witches. 
> The modern Wicca Religion began in the late 1940s, and is basically a 
> nature worshiping religion. Its followers do not practice communion 
> with the dead for prophesy, nor do they issue curses to harm others, nor 
> do they make pacts with "Satan." Therefore, historically there is no 
> relationship between the "witch" of Exodus, the "witch" of St. Jerome's 
> time, nor the "witch" of King James' time. 
> 
> >I have labored over years, reviewing the writings and ideas that those who 
> >have succeeded HPB in writing on THEOSOPHY have recorded. I find (for me) 
> >that they obscure more often than enlighten. Judge is an exception as a 
> >writer, as he never assumes to correct or "know better than" either the 
> >Masters or HPB. I am essentially independent and test everything I reads 
> >with common sense and a sense of the orderliness and purpose of the 
> >Universe, World, Humans, and atoms. 
> > 
> Others may read those writings differently and have different experiences. 
> 
> >JHE 
> >This is all new to me. I have an interest in ancient coins, and have a 
> >small collection of them. From all of my reading, they classify, date 
> >and identify fakes purely by their appearance. I never heard of anyone 
> >taking a valuable gold coin, and assay it (which would deface or destroy 
> >the coin) in order to determine this information. 
> > 
> >----------------------------------------- 
> > 
> >DTB From what I have read [from texts on Gemology and Precious Metals] 
> >only a very minute quantity is used and the integrity and value of the coin 
> >is not impaired. 
> > 
> Sounds like a time consuming and expensive way to go about something 
> that can be done by the coin's appearance. However, I can understand, 
> that in the case of an extremely rare coin, a collector may want further 
> proof of its authenticity from a second method. 
> 
> >DTB 
> >I also would say that every human is a Mind and a Free Thinker. 
> > 
> > 
> >JHE 
> >Some seem to be freer than others. 
> > 
> >DTB 
> >If you will concede me this as a fair basis or "source" then, may we can 
> >proceed to details that I think are valid. 
> > 
> As a philosophical statement, it would need qualification. For 
> instance, I could say that every human is a physical body. Every human 
> being is a type of animal ect. Many statements can be made which are 
> just true as your's. By qualification, I mean that the statement, to be 
> philosophically significant, must lead one to a new insight (i.e. valid 
> details that go beyond points made in Theosophical texts), as opposed to 
> proving a pre-existing philosophical system. 
> 
> >JHE 
> >Yes, I gladly concede to you that you have created an excellent summary 
> >of the source teachings according to your tradition. 
> > 
> >------------------------------------ 
> > 
> >DTB There we go again: You assume I have adopted a "tradition." I say 
> >I am independent, but use any "tradition," to the extent that it is fair, 
> >free of bias, and true to reason and logic. 
> > 
> You have been with ULT for 60 years or more. Your vocabulary, use of 
> terms, phrasing, and mode of logic is representative of ULT tradition. 
> I do not see anything in your arguments, vocabulary, phrasing of 
> expressions, use of logic etc. that distinguishes you from the ULT 
> tradition. Perhaps you can point out the differences? 
> 
> >For example: I have been in life an editor of scientific material for may 
> >years, and privately, a philosopher. The two are not incompatible to me. 
> >THEOSOPHY seems to be the most balanced, all-inclusive and eclectic system 
> >so far made available to us. It needs to be carefully studied so that each 
> >student assures himself of its value. So, having found it the most useful 
> >and truest so far, I defend it and its proponents. 
> > 
> I can hear Victor Endersby using the same words. Though, he began in 
> ULT in 1921, was an editor of scientific material, privately a 
> philosopher. Of course you are Victor are different people. Victor, in 
> addition was professionally an engineer, he wrote fantasy fiction for 
> recreation, and edited a Theosophical journal. He also described 
> Theosophy in much the same way as you. 
> 
> >In what way is "your tradition (mine)" different from yours, or any other ? 
> > 
> Different traditions have different "authorities." But, we have already 
> covered this. 
> 
> >Is it the ORIGINALS you are unsure of? 
> > 
> No, I'm pretty clear on that. I could recite to you the 'ORIGINALS' for 
> each Theosophical tradition. 
> 
> >Do you mean HPB did not bring Masters' message in full? [ In spite of what 
> >They "the Masters" say and demonstrate ? ] 
> > 
> No. I understand the Theosophical teachings. 
> 
> >Can you give a summary of yours for comparison? 
> > 
> >It would help me understand. Dal 
> > 
> My what? 
> 
> Best 
> Jerry 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W.Dallas TenBroeck wrote: 
> 
> >8/27/2005 5:12 AM 
> > 
> >Dear Jerry: 
> > 
> >Allow me to answer by inserting notes below in your text: 
> > 
> >Dallas 
> > 
> >============================= 
> > 
> >-----Original Message----- 
> >From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
> >Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:17 PM 
> >To: 
> >Subject: RE: Jerry HE: Does GdP actually teach this view given by Frank? 
> > 
> > Dear Dallas, 
> > 
> >----------------------------------------------- 
> > 
> >DTB 
> >As I wrote, we (or at least I) are not seeking to identify differences, we 
> >are seeking for the TRUTH -- all of us. In metallurgy (or old alchemy) we 
> >might say we are seeking for the highest known value: "gold." 
> > 
> > 
> >JHE 
> >As for TRUTH, if you mean an ultimate Truth, its very existence is a 
> >matter of debate. 
> > 
> >------------------------------------------------------------ 
> > 
> >DTB Who debated it? Why ? 
> > 
> >Are Minds incapable of encompassing and assimilating it? 
> > 
> >I thought "Manas" was described as a fragment of MAHAT -- the Universal Mind 
> >-- the "soul" and the "intellectual understanding" as a manifested 
> >reflection of "All-Wisdom," and the first aspect of Parabrahm, and Pradhana 
> >[S D II 81, 230, 378 ; S D I 75, 110, 256, 335, 373, 420, 451, 572 ] 
> > 
> >Our globe is said to be a progeny of Mahat S D I 260 -- and we, the 
> >"Manasa-putras" are its "sons" [ S D II 58-9, 103, 167, 230 ] 
> > 
> >----------------------------------------------- 
> > 
> > 
> >JHE 
> >Certain Evangelical faith based groups advocate the 
> >existence of absolute Truth, and argue that they are the only means to 
> >it. Personally, I don't believe that the question is answerable one 
> >way or the other--rather, it is a matter of faith. So, I don't concern 
> >myself with that question one way or the other. Rather, I am interested 
> >in those relative truths (knowledge) which can lead to transcendent 
> >truths (realization). 
> > 
> >----------------------------------------------------- 
> > 
> >DTB Lets then agree to look at it your way. 
> > 
> >I have always abhorred "faith" which to me signifies: an improvable blind 
> >belief" and why should I take anything important as "true" without 
> >verification ? How do I know the assertion is AUTHORITATIVE ? 
> > 
> >Who the ultimately bears the cost of time effort and money? 
> > 
> >How many flit from "faith" to faith?" 
> > 
> >Is that under the impulse of Manas or of indecisive and thoughtless, 
> >mindless Kama ? I thought we were supposed, at this period in the great 
> >cycle, to be ridding ourselves of "belief" and entering the realm of logic, 
> >reason and proof? 
> >The "Fifth Race" is due to develop mind as a faculty, and abandon frivolous 
> >and selfish "passions and desires." 
> > 
> >A sense of cooperative and interactive brotherhood under impersonal and 
> >universal Law, would certainly tend to give a reasonable assurance of 
> >veracity to any proposition placed before it ? 
> > 
> >Is that not the tacit basis for all legislation and legal procedures -- and 
> >we may see this operating throughout the world ? Why should philosophy 
> >forego that advantage ? What does "common sense" say? 
> > 
> >Where are the "relative truths" emanating from? (knowledge of detail or 
> >measurement of differences and separateness) . 
> > 
> >If we have access to a knowledge of the "ultimate units of time" and 
> >"space," we might be able to determine (approximately) what some of the 
> >"relative (mayavic) truths" are. But at present our instruments and 
> >faculties are filtered through "physical gross matter ?" And that is said 
> >to alter constantly, by both Science and Theosophy -- also, both use the 
> >(mind) concept of the eternity and unalterable qualities of the "atoms." 
> >Both accept the reign of universal law that governs the physical qualities 
> >and interactions of substances. And we are beginning to suspect and 
> >contact the realm of invisible and intangible substances -- [the electro- 
> >and magneto-spheres associated with all objects in whatever state]. 
> > 
> >But inasmuch as forms continually vary from moment to moment (under the law 
> >of the astral electro-magnetic life-fields) as atoms and sub-atoms of LIFE 
> >come and go, (can we assume this is done individually and invariably under 
> >Universal LAW or Karma?) stability is almost unobtainable from the point of 
> >view of our physical plane observation -- am I right? Apparently the 
> >electro-magnetic (place, location, time) fields are stronger than mere 
> >physical bonding. And what are they? How do they come into existence? [How 
> >does the body heal itself?] 
> > 
> >Apparently Nature (the Living Universe) has her own plans and methods and 
> >those have been in place since before we were born -- how far back we don't 
> >know -- supersede ours. They could be the actual rules and order of all 
> >evolution -- from within to the without. 
> > 
> >So any physical measurement we may make, now or hereafter, has to depend on 
> >"memory." For us stone, or one of the inert metals (like Titanium) appears 
> >to be such a long-lasting record. But even those have limits and we can 
> >hardly be sure of myths and traditions that are over 7,000 years in age. 
> >How old are the Pyramids built by 3rd and 4th Race Initiates [ S D II 
> >353; S D I 314-5 ] ? 
> > 
> >How stable is our (human) memory? Are we yet able to penetrate to that 
> >plane of indelible eternity (Akasa) where those records are inscribed by the 
> >Lipika [S D I 103-5, 126-131, ? (or even to the records in the "astral 
> >light?" ( S D I 59, 63). I assume the "Lipika" are actually one of the 
> >highest functions of the living atoms of life themselves -- all immortals! 
> > 
> >I can see, if this is a correct procedure, that "relative truths 
> >(knowledge)" which can lead to "transcendent truths (realization)" means: 
> >the "relative truths" gives evidence but no absolute detail about underlying 
> >"transcendent truths" -- which 'the epoptai-Initiates' may secure as a 
> >vision by "realization." Since this faculty is under development, and is 
> >not yet a common property or means of inter-communication, there will be 
> >room for inaccuracy and speculation at present. Is this not the method of 
> >KAMA-MANAS ? 
> > 
> >--------------------------------------------- 
> > 
> > 
> >JHE 
> >As for the gold metaphor: I think that the manner of one's search 
> >depends upon one's mining techniques. I prefer an historical approach 
> >to understanding (but also like to use others too). Some prefer a 
> >phenomenological approach. Others, an essentialist approach and, still 
> >others, a post-modern approach etc. It appears that you prefer the 
> >essentialist approach. That seems to work for you. The historical 
> >approach works for me. 
> > 
> >----------------------------------------------------------- 
> > 
> >DTB I did not mean mining techniques or molding methods. I allegorized 
> >GOLD for TRUTH. 
> > 
> >All the methods of "approach" you mention will fall under your "relative 
> >truths (knowledge)" category -- to which my synthetic comments apply. 
> > 
> >One gets lost in detail and as you suspect my "essentialist approach" is one 
> >that strives to use the pure BUDDHI-MANAS and not the KAMA-MANAS. 
> > 
> >If BUDDHI approaches the closest to ATMA, then why not use it as best we can 
> >if we can secure some concept of its actuality and methods. [I found 
> >Patanjali's YOGA SUTRAS very helpful in this.] 
> > 
> >I am curious about the "historical method" you use? Can you share ? 
> > 
> >I have labored over years, reviewing the writings and ideas that those who 
> >have succeeded HPB in writing on THEOSOPHY have recorded. I find (for me) 
> >that they obscure more often than enlighten. Judge is an exception as a 
> >writer, as he never assumes to correct or "know better than" either the 
> >Masters or HPB. I am essentially independent and test everything I reads 
> >with common sense and a sense of the orderliness and purpose of the 
> >Universe, World, Humans, and atoms. 
> > 
> >I think universal CONSCIOUSNESS -- "to know itself" -- periodically (but 
> >under UNIVERSAL Karma) splits cyclically into countless fragments, each a 
> >"potency" and a "mirror" of that ONE, SOLE and ever UNKNOWABLE -- and in 
> >the administration of harmony, purpose and equality for all, each Monad 
> >develops an independent yet cooperative Mind, which voluntarily abides by 
> >the rules and regulations of the UNIVERSAL LAW (without surrendering its 
> >individuality and potential of individual action) -- thus we all eventually 
> >develop the ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS Spiritual Entity within ourselves and thus 
> >become Mahatmas individually. I may be wrong on this, but I suspect I am 
> >more right than wrong. 
> > 
> >-------------------------------------------- 
> > 
> >DTB 
> >Original minted gold coins have been counterfeited after that first casting 
> >time for ages. But modern science enables us to assay them for their alloys 
> >and impurities to the extent that a trained assayist can determine from a 
> >sample the probable age and era of the casting of any coin. He discovers 
> >when it was most likely cast, and whether the mix (impurities, other metals, 
> >etc.) has been altered. 
> > 
> >JHE 
> >This is all new to me. I have an interest in ancient coins, and have a 
> >small collection of them. From all of my reading, they classify, date 
> >and identify fakes purely by their appearance. I never heard of anyone 
> >taking a valuable gold coin, and assay it (which would deface or destroy 
> >the coin) in order to determine this information. 
> > 
> >----------------------------------------- 
> > 
> >DTB From what I have read [from texts on Gemology and Precious Metals] 
> >only a very minute quantity is used and the integrity and value of the coin 
> >is not impaired. 
> > 
> >-------------------------------------------- 
> > 
> >DTB 
> >I also would say that every human is a Mind and a Free Thinker. 
> > 
> > 
> >JHE 
> >Some seem to be freer than others. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >DTB 
> >If you will concede me this as a fair basis or "source" then, may we can 
> >proceed to details that I think are valid. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >JHE 
> >Yes, I gladly concede to you that you have created an excellent summary 
> >of the source teachings according to your tradition. 
> > 
> >------------------------------------ 
> > 
> >DTB There we go again: You assume I have adopted a "tradition." I say 
> >I am independent, but use any "tradition," to the extent that it is fair, 
> >free of bias, and true to reason and logic. 
> > 
> >For example: I have been in life an editor of scientific material for may 
> >years, and privately, a philosopher. The two are not incompatible to me. 
> >THEOSOPHY seems to be the most balanced, all-inclusive and eclectic system 
> >so far made available to us. It needs to be carefully studied so that each 
> >student assures himself of its value. So, having found it the most useful 
> >and truest so far, I defend it and its proponents. 
> > 
> >Let me ask: 
> > 
> >In what way is "your tradition (mine)" different from yours, or any other ? 
> > 
> >SOURCE and BASIS ought to coincide? If they are fair and logical and true? 
> >NO ? Possibly words make some difference, but not to the originals, surely? 
> > 
> >Is it the ORIGINALS you are unsure of? 
> > 
> >Do you mean HPB did not bring Masters' message in full? [ In spite of what 
> >They "the Masters" say and demonstrate ? ] 
> > 
> >Can you give a summary of yours for comparison? 
> > 
> >It would help me understand. Dal 
> > 
> >====================================== 
> >Best wishes, 
> >Jerry 
> > 
> > 
> >======================================== 
> > 
> >W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: 
> > 
> >8/25/2005 
> > 
> >Dear Jerry: 
> > 
> > Re: "Traditions" 
> > 
> >As I wrote, we (or at least I) are not seeking to identify differences, we 
> >are seeking for the TRUTH -- all of us. In metallurgy (or old alchemy) we 
> >might say we are seeking for the highest known value: "gold." 
> > 
> >What are the rules and laws established by Nature -- to run our Universe, 
> >our world and our physical and conscious existence, and mental presence? Are 
> >they not the "gold" of the entire system? 
> > 
> >Are they not, since antiquity, set in place for our support, life and 
> >well-being? [Not only ours, but that of all other beings, atoms, galaxies, 
> >etc.] 
> > 
> >Where and how did they evolve? Who guided, devised and set them going? Are 
> >they impossible to discover? 
> > 
> >Do not Science and Philosophy endeavour to solve those mysteries? 
> > 
> >In mathematics, the rules of arithmetic may be seen as the source, 
> >foundation and basics of the whole system of enumeration -- the enormous 
> >complexity and measurement (in engineering, chemistry, physics, astronomy, 
> >etc...) of detail that calculus expresses, is based on UNITY (the ONE) and 
> >that in turn, may be imagined to radiate or emanate (?) from the 
> >indescribable ZERO ( 0 ) that some denominate THE ABSOLUTE. 
> > 
> >We recognize intellectually this ONE [that to us is quite indistinct (for it 
> >is either too large or to small) and, to many, it appears to be devoid of 
> >qualities] when "manifested into objectivity," becomes the TWO ( 2 ). 
> > 
> >This has been designated a symbol for the countless indivisible (strings - 
> >?) of ATMA-BUDDHI "monads." The symbolic analogy then proceeds to THREE (3 
> >) that includes the PERCEIVER or MIND. [ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS] 
> > 
> >Suppose we were numismatists -- coin collectors. Then, we might seek to find 
> >true and authentic old coins for our collection. Let us take the rarest: 
> >GOLD. 
> > 
> >Original minted gold coins have been counterfeited after that first casting 
> >time for ages. But modern science enables us to assay them for their alloys 
> >and impurities to the extent that a trained assayist can determine from a 
> >sample the probable age and era of the casting of any coin. He discovers 
> >when it was most likely cast, and whether the mix (impurities, other metals, 
> >etc.) has been altered. It is a genuine science and records have been kept 
> >and are available to the experts and the students. As time passes a regular 
> >table in time has been created that gives the assayer an idea of when and 
> >where a casting has taken place. 
> > 
> >Counterfeiters will often make a mold of a truly old coin, then use "modern 
> >refined" gold to cast a facsimile of it. Then they age it superficially, 
> >and then endeavor to sell it as a genuine antique. But the actual material 
> >used (alloys with other metals, and impurities common to the actual time and 
> >place of origin) have been detected and recorded. 
> > 
> >Unless this more thorough type of assay is used, he can be fooled. 
> > 
> >He may however decide to trust on "faith" and "belief" in the honesty and 
> >veracity of the seller. The result is as all may expect. 
> > 
> >Each seeker after TRUTH has to employ their own mind, trained to some 
> >degree, so that he alone knows how much he can trust that. Very often our 
> >desires and emotions try to make us decide in haste (and repent at leisure 
> >?) without using the tedious kind of study needed to ensure accuracy and 
> >logical reasons for conclusions offered. Then we find (as we have nowadays) 
> >a number of concurrent dogmatic and authoritarian religions, opinions and 
> >pronouncements -- and, perhaps, "traditions ?" -- and I have noticed that 
> >indoctrination of the young proceeds all over the world. No alternatives are 
> >offered ! 
> > 
> >The search for TRUTH leads any dedicated seeker (and, whether we know this 
> >or not, all of us are such) day after day, and life after life, to acquire a 
> >precise knowledge of the Universe we live in, and which has long been 
> >established as a common and secure basis for all co-existent and 
> >pre-existent beings. [As an example at hand, take the meticulous 
> >fabrication of computers and the software that enables a "user" Mind -- as 
> >well as many trained "programmer" Minds -- to run them with accuracy and 
> >trust. There -- is constant verification with concurrent usage. Observe 
> >the continual war between virus and anti-virus. Who are the "bad-guys?" ] 
> > 
> >I think you will find these to be fair analogies to the general "search for 
> >TRUTH" that many of us are engaged in. Dare we foist our findings on 
> >others? Can we make any claims for "authority?" I would say NOT. 
> > 
> >In my esteem, "traditions" count for very little unless they can be 
> >demonstrated to be invariably true on testing, to the basic composition and 
> >running laws of our UNIVERSE. THEOSOPHY clams to be an exposition of his. 
> > 
> >You may say that our minds and emotions make us fallible, and I would agree 
> >But why trust me? Consider the following: 
> > 
> >1 If idealism and altruism resides in SPIRIT, and if this is 
> >ubiquitous, then an aspect (ray, spark, etc.) of THAT is interiorly resident 
> >in every being, monad, life-atom, human, -- and grain of sand -- each is 
> >potentially, over an enormous period of time and experience, a human 
> >mind-being. I know this is asking a lot because the implication is that all 
> >Monads are immortals. We interiorly, are as monads, immortals. Hence, the 
> >brotherhood of ALL, and the evolution of individual intelligence by means of 
> >reincarnation and karma are needed, essential, basic and actual facts. 
> > 
> >2 Shall we agree that all beings are united in that FACT of a common 
> >LIFE -- ever together ? Physical, emotional and mental environments are 
> >largely shared by us all, regardless of physical distance. 
> > 
> >3 Differences (form, emotion, feeling, desires, mind, experience in 
> >this life) are passing phases of the embodied consciousness -- of memories 
> >and of appearances, and they are continually changing as the laws of 
> >progress and continual interaction, demand that the Monads (each being an 
> >eternal being having individually, some degree of progress) continually move 
> >and alter within the parameters of the astral (electro-magnetic) framework 
> >that underlies the presence and the environment of any and all physical and 
> >non-physical forms. Thus the descriptive concept of "Maya" (illusion) is 
> >used for our present physical matter knowledge, situation, condition and 
> >universe. The forms change constantly, our knowledge is continually 
> >changing and expanding, while the interior ONE SPIRITUAL ENTITY is forever 
> >the SAME individual. 
> > 
> >4 The "Eternal Pilgrim" [BUDDHI-MANAS] is the "Monad." The Monad is 
> >described as SPIRIT-MATTER conjoined (sounds somewhat like the "String 
> >Theory"). It is a duality and requires a coexistent MIND to serve as a 
> >PERCEIVER and a link between these two extremes. Thus the "Duad" in 
> >manifestation, is in our reality, always a "TRIAD." 
> > 
> >5 It is ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS [a Triad] in us which is the eternal and 
> >changeless Perceiver and the ruler of our Lower (embodied brain - Mind) and 
> >emotions. In the Kosmos it is MAHAT or the UNIVERSAL MIND. 
> > 
> >[Have a look at what is said in the SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol. II, p. 167 (see 
> >below) about a resident Tutor assisting the development of each independent 
> >Mind being. I find there is a correlation to this as expressed by HPB in 
> >TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE, pp. 64-5 (below) 
> > 
> >If you will concede me this as a fair basis or "source" then, may we can 
> >proceed to details that I think are valid. 
> > 
> >I prefer using HPB's The SECRET DOCTRINE, The VOICE OF THE SILENCE and 
> >The KEY TO THEOSOPHY as basic source explanations for the details THEOSOPHY 
> >teaches. I do not feel I need an intermediary to explain them. I have time 
> >and can use a dictionary and an encyclopedia when needed, "Google" is a 
> >great help to secure source materials for study. 
> > 
> >But every one is free to choose their own "Path," and, spend as much time as 
> >is needed to eventually achieve SUPREME PERFECTION. 
> > 
> >I also would say that every human is a Mind and a Free Thinker. 
> > 
> >Best wishes, 
> > 
> >Dallas 
> >=================== 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >Yahoo! Groups Links 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]