Theos-Talk Archives (January 2001 Message tt00023)

In a message dated 01/03/01 10:55:28 AM, Ecarpent@co.la.ca.us writes:

>I am trying to work from universals downward and wish to find and then
>proceed step by step downward from the most spiritual to the more material.
> I wish every step to be logical and provable and subject to intense 
constructive
>criticism.

Good idea.

> There are assumptions on which plane geometry is constructed. 'twould
>be neat to start at the beginning without any assumptions whatsoever, no?

Right... No. There has to be an assumption before anything can start. And 
(besides the fact that there is no beginning or end) the basic assumption 
must be that "Nothing comes from nothing" -- as the Buddha pointed out. HPB 
also said that before any phenomena of the manifest universe be taken into 
consideration, one must first know and accept the Three Fundamental 
Principles on which every thing and every action rests. Without being 
subject to proof, these principles are nothing more than presumptions or 
axioms that must underlie any plane and solid geometries or other pure 
mathematics that are latent or noumenal in the Absolute, and that only become 
phenomenal symbols of universal law and evolution after its initial 
manifestation when phenomenal mind can recognize them. 

Therefore, in addition to the "principles" that guide the emanation, 
involution and evolution of the Cosmos, as well as all the monads in it, 
there is a basic assumption that cannot be denied, and which is the rootless 
root of the fundamental principles themselves... And, that is; the infinite 
and eternal "abstract motion" -- which is the inherent nature of the Absolute 
itself. Being such, it cannot be "known" by finite, time-sequenced mind... 
But, it's actions can be deduced from the laws inherent in its nature coupled 
with the experience gathered through observance of its periodic phenomena. 
Thus, science, philosophy and religion must be applied synthetically before 
we consider any symbolic representations of universal involution and 
evolution. To base one's assumptions on any one of them, alone, is doing a 
disservice to all followers or potential students of the Wisdom Teachings. 
Symbols must never be confused with the real thing symbolized. That's 
probably why HPB repeatedly said the same things in many different ways. 
>
>When I listed the ten dots I am getting into an area that I would love
>to understand better but don't. I was delighted when a mathematician pointed
>out to me that the point, the two points of the line, the three points
>of the triangle and the four points of the tetrahedron form the ten points
>of the tetractys. 

The problem here is that the mathematician jumped the gun and began mixing 
2-dimensional (plane) with 3-dimensional (solid) geometry before he completed 
the two dimensional series from point, to line, to triangle, to square, which 
also adds up to the ten points of the 2-dimensional "tetraktys" or 
Pythagorean Triangle. The tetrahedron belongs to another level of 
manifestation, although it is the bridge between the linear and the non lin
ear worlds. Thus, there are always at least two ways of looking at things. 
There are actually two separate logos before the phenomenal 
subjective-objective physical Universe (or Solar System) appears as the 
third. The Master said, seemingly paradoxically, "These completely 
subjective states precede the later objective states -- yet, they are 
objective to their preceding states." None of this can be "proven," of 
course... But, it can be known intuitionally. 

The logic or reasoning, on the other hand, follows from the three fundamental 
principles, and can only be expressed symbolically with numbers and forms 
once manifestation begins. Thus consciousness (Perusha) and matter 
(Prakriti) are on two different but interconnected levels of manifestation, 
with mind (Mahat) the mediator between them, and the surrounding intelligent 
energy (Fohat) empowering and informing them all. That is the real tetraktys 
(later transmuted into the Tetragrammaton, Yod Hay Voh Hay). Remember both 
the triangle and the square must have a supporting point in the center of 
their superscribed circles, around which they must spin to remain stable -- 
as do all the regular polygons from the tetrahedron to the dodecahedron. Thus 
"the three the one the four the one the five, the twice seven, the sum 
total." The intuitive student will know what this means with relation to the 
sacred geometries as well as to the involution and evolution of the Cosmos. 

So one has:
>
>(on the microcosmic scale)
>1. Logoic plane(state of consciousness)
>2. Monadic plane
>3. Atmic plane: Atma, the one mathematical point within the circle
>4. Buddhic plane: the two points of the line
>5. Manasic plane(higher Manas): the three points of the triangle
>
> Manasic plane(lower Manas): the four points of the tetrahedron( here
>I'm not at all clear, I've always studied the SD down to the level of the
>triangle and then stopped, so . . . . help! I'm guessing that the 
tetrahedron
>stands for the concrete, practical mind)

This guess is certainly wrong, since there is no logic for any of the 
preceding assumptions, as well as a total confusion between the meaning of 
"plane" as contrasted with a "plenum" or "field." We must remember that the 
use of the point and the linear mathematical progressions, from the point 
through the line, the plane and the solid geometries, as representations of 
the first stages of genesis, are purely symbolical and have no direct 
relationship with a later differentiation of a Universe that is 
multidimensional and extends non-linearly as "coadunate but not 
consubstantial" triune (or Monadic) fields within fields within fields -- as 
plenums rather than planes. And, that the limited action in linear directions 
through the points between and at the centers of each such plenum or field is 
the "plane" that is referred to theosophically. For a clearer picture of 
this, see the symbolic diagrams at: 
http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
>
>The paragraph you have quoted seems so important and crucial to understand.
> Perhaps others might help clarify. I wish to stay focussed on the problem
>of "where" the mathematical point comes from. I suspect that it is potential
>only at the logoic plane as there is nothing, no abstract space even, that
>might allow it to appear. The circle representing Total unconditioned
>consciousness and bare subjectivity must be PRESENT in order for the point
>to "Appear" and start the creative cycle once again. My experience is
>that I get tired, I forget, then I rest and meditate . . . . and remember:
>essentially it is all absolutely nothing whatsoever! To me this is a tiny
>spark of enlightenment. It takes so little to make fool laugh and giggle.

Unfortunately, while you may assume it's absolutely nothing at all and get 
all giggly about it, keep in the back of your mind that the herd of elephants 
bearing down on you are real enough "things" that could trample you into the 
real enough "ground." Until we leave this level of existence, what we 
experience on it in consciousness is as real to us as the field is to itself. 
The point and the circle are each the source of the other and must exist 
simultaneously as an eternal duality in triune unity along with the space 
surrounding and in between them -- whether manifest or unmanifest. Therefore, 
all assumptions of universal origins must be based on the axioms provided by 
the three fundamental principles -- which, together, presume that there must 
be an existing something in the "Absolute abstract space" before anything can 
emanate, involve, or evolve out of it. And, that "something" is the infinite 
energy of abstract motion that, as Krishna points out, "produces this entire 
universe and yet remains separate and undiminished." 

Therefore, we must assume that before manifestation, the Kosmos exists in 
potentiality as a mathematical point of zero dimension around which 
circulates infinite abstract energy containing within itself all the 
potentialities of the entire series of universes to come. That's what makes 
it Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent. Therefore, since there is nothing 
in the primal zero-point itself, all the past present and future potentials 
must reside in the circulating energy surrounding it and tied to it. Remember 
also, that in order for the "center of the Universe to be everywhere (and its 
circumference nowhere"), it's zero-point dimension must always remain zero. 
Therefore, it follows that there is no difference between the Absolute 
abstract point of pre logoic existence and the mathematical zero-points at 
the ends of our rulers or the apexes of our geometric figures -- up to the 3, 
5, 7, 10, 14... 49, etc., dimensions of manifest Space and all the points in 
between. 

So, the actual "point" of it all could be the *purpose* of it all as 
explained in the third fundamental principle. Thus the fundamentals start 
with a point and end with a point -- with a series of cycles in between... 
And, everything proceeds further in accordance with analogy and 
correspondence. That's all the logic we need to figure out how it all 
evolves and involves from one stage to another. All the fine points of such 
cyclic action can be deduced by pure intuition tempered by reason (along with 
a few hints given by those who know. But, these "knowers" can't show you what 
they actually see or experience in their higher mind's eye. We each have to 
find out all that for ourselves -- and then, try to explain it to others.:-)

Respectfully,

LHM