Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00114)

In a message dated 4/27/00 2:15:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
ecarpent@co.la.ca.us writes:

<<  I think I can irritate the hell out of mathematicians and show them that 
pure
 mathematics is about as close as one can get to esoteric philosophic roots.
 And, finally, I love this, that HPB wrote:(I paraphrase)
 
 If one understands the philosophy of Leibniz and the philosophy of Spinoza
 and harmonizes the conflicts between these two philosophers one has the
 whole of the spirit of esoteric philosophy.  (And she goes on to write that
 Spinoza is a subjective Pantheist and Leibniz is an objective Pantheist.)
 
 It is this last paragraph that states the challange to theosophy in our time
 if one wishes bridge the apparent gap between esoteric philosophy and
 western science.
 I've no training in philosophy or mathematics, except the basics, but I can
 cheerlead others into getting this job done.  Let's harmonize the conflicts
 between Leibniz and Spinoza and thereby have a philosophy that can harmonize
 the conflicts between our transpersonal souls and our personalities.  Let's
 let the world know, loud and clear, and in their own language, that HPB is
 the greatest source of information about Life that the world as seen for
 hundreds of years.  The moment has come.
 Love,
 Eugene >>

Dear Eugene,

I'd like to share a couple of thoughts on your very thoughtful message.
The first, concerning the place of mathematics & "esoteric philosophic 
roots."  According to HPB & her teachers, the ancient wisdom MUST be 
understood in terms of seven keys.  The mathematical key is one of those.  
But -- again, according to HPB & her teachers -- the MASTER KEY that MUST be 
turned FIRST before any of the others can have any efficacy, is the 
PSYCHOLOGICAL or MYSTICAL KEY.  That is the key that stands for INITIATION, 
TRANSFORMATION.  If that key is not turned first, we are told, we'll end up 
in confusion, conflict, or worse -- in black magic.  (If you wish to see 
specific references to what I've just said, please read my papers on "The 
Secret Doctrine, Krishnamurti, and Transformation," and (in two parts) 
"Transformation:  Vital Essence of HPB's Secret Doctrine."  They can both be 
downloaded by going to www.teosofia.com.
So from an esoteric perspective, mathematics is useless, even dangerous, if 
there is not first transformation going on in one's life.  For the dangers of 
mathematics in particular (& of science in general) when uninformed by 
theosophical states of awareness, please witness the present rape of the 
whole planet -- which could not happen without mathematicians & "scientists" 
-- or its possible destruction through some idiotic system-monger pushing 
some button & blowing us all up to smithereens -- with technology created by 
untransformed mathematics & science.
About Spinoza & Leibniz:  It strikes me rather intensely that what is by far 
most relevant in the work of these two men is almost always ignored, when 
they are studied from an academic perspective.  To me what truly matters 
about them both is the saintliness & insight-compassion that saturates their 
work.  That saintliness & insight-compassion is what informs every single 
thing they had to say, & strikes me as their real source.  But academically, 
we are told that Spinoza was "philosophizing by doing geometry, or 
geometrizing by doing philosophy," & that Leibniz was "the monadologist, for 
whom everything is reducible to incommensurable spiritual points."
Yes, Spinoza's great work, the Ethics, was written, as he put it in Latin, 
"more geometrico" (in a geometrical way).  But if the saintliness that work 
came from is ignored, its whole point WILL be ignored, as well.  At least 
that's the way it strikes me.
In other words, & as in the esoteric teaching (as outlined above in terms of 
the seven keys), there were first theosophical states of awareness -- 
transformation -- & then an attempt at expressing the reality of such states, 
using a language that would be understandable & acceptable to the 17th 
Century audience for whom it was primarily written.
I'll share with you what strikes me as eminently relevant about the work of 
these two men, from an esoteric perspective:
Leibniz "starts" as if from the MICROCOSM, whereas Spinoza "starts" as if 
from the MACROCOSM.  Spinoza is attempting to tell us "the way things are" 
from "God's perspective."  Leibniz attempts to do the same, but seemingly 
starting from "the monad," the "particular" unit which is actually like a 
hologram of the entire universe, since it reflects the all within itself, as 
a kind of universal DNA.
Esoterically, both are "right," insofar as they are both saying that there 
MUST be the particular & the universal engaged simultaneously.  But 
esoterically, none of this can really be spoken about, without making 
colossal mistakes.  (This is, incidentally, a major "reason" why the ancient 
wisdom has always been "hidden, occult.")
This oneness between the particular & the universal can only be a 
PSYCHOLOGICAL process, an ACTION one engages in, not a merely INTELLECTUAL 
consent or BELIEF.  If it is only the latter (which is what is done 
everywhere with the work of these two men), one ends up in a self-centered 
miasma, thinking that one now "understands better," whereas the fact is that 
one has only succeeded in ACCEPTING a new system-based notion, without having 
even the vaguest understanding, since one has not gone through the extremely 
rigorous process of transformation, which was the source for these works, in 
the first place.
This central esoteric "teaching" of the unity between the particular & the 
universal (which are extraordinarily clumsy, inadequate, & misleading WORDS) 
has been expressed in its most clear way, to my knowledge, in the work of J. 
Krishnamurti.  A main reason for that, is that in K's work there is no 
reference at all to any purely ANALYTICAL CONCEPTS.  Therefore, it is nearly 
impossible, within K's work, to make the kinds of mistakes that used to be so 
very common within as well as without esoteric circles.  The only way it's 
possible to make such mistakes within K's work is by grossly misrepresenting 
them.
This is VITAL, because if & to the extent one persists in the belief that the 
analytical mind is in a position to yield valuable "insights" into THAT WHICH 
IS, to that extent one will be saturated with, & promoting, confusion, 
conflict, & division, both psychologically & globally.
With affection,
Aryel

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.