Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00207)

Gerald wrote: <<Let me explain the above for just a 
moment. Blavatsky tells us that one of our primal 
dualities is Space and Motion (and this can also be found 
in Dzogchen). One of the main rules of dualities is that 
you can't have one without the other -- they go together 
as a pair of opposite polarites and each depends on
the other for meaning. Now this is easy for me to see 
when I think of Motion depending on Space, because 
obviously Motion requires Space in which to move
around. But the idea that Space depends on/requires 
Motion is not obvious to me. It is easy for me to conceive 
of Space without any Motion, just pure empty motionless 
Space. But if the law of dualities holds, then this is just a
mental concept, and is not what is really going on. In 
reality, there is no Space without Motion in it. >>

But/"but" . . . ^:-) . . . "Space"? "Motion"? I'm trying to 
figure out . . . or at least trying get some kind of handle, 
in some way, (for the sake of this kind of discussion, 
say?), on what might be "intentionally meant," (by some 
people, not excluding myself?), in that context, by "space 
and motion."

Anyway, what comes to mind---or "my mind," as they 
say---(and of course "your mind," Gerald, might . . . 
whatever):

"Space." I tend to see it as a mayavic, conditional, 
relational medium-aspect of duality, or of dualistic 
perception or worldview. Not inseparable, or existing 
apart from, the parameters of a "individual/collective" 
worldview, which in itself, being mayavic (being a 
temporary/conditional "reality"), is held together, or 
made "realistic enough," by the karmaself 
"inter-reactiveness" (or exoteric version) that we call 
awareness, life, reality. In broader terms, I tend to see 
"space" as being representative of the "freedoms" by 
which various karmaself processes can occur: such 
"freedoms" being expressive of such as: room to 
maneuver, time to think, opportunities to create, 
modelize, speculate, study, Theosophize, learn, 
spiritualize, etc, etc. 

In other words, I wonder if "space" plays a key role in 
why we're here in this duality world: could there have 
been some kind of adoption of this "duality life" at some 
point "in the past": possibly (?) so as to experience (and 
learn from, in some way?) a dualistic "space/motion" 
experience that's Contrasting (dualistic) in essence, and 
thereby, (more importatly?), offering "freedoms per 
karmaself"---no matter how mayavic such "freedoms" 
might have been recogized as from, say, a "former and 
more Unific (or "non-dualistic") perspective? . . . 
("former" is meant as a space/motion contrast view as 
per the mayavic freedom of the karmaself reality).

<<It would also probably help if students realized that 
there is intellectual knowledge and experiential 
knowledge, and that the two are different. Most students 
are very content with the intellectual, worrying for 
example over the "original" written words Blavatsky 
might have used. Why? Because of a possible nuance in
meaning. They fail to realize that once one gains 
experiential knowledge, the meanings of words become 
very apparent, and one KNOWS what Blavatsky is
saying. >>

Yes, and then there was that Zen master, eh, who said 
something about not mistaking his finger pointing at the 
moon for the moon itself.

M<<<<<For example, why is it that when I read many of 
Leon's posts, I tend to feel that his scientizing comes 
across to me as if he doesn't realize that, while modeling 
might be a nice hobby, that's not, after all, what 
Theosophy is more realistically about. I see Theosophy 
as a medium by which one might in some way transcend 
dualistic notions not by creating more of 
dualistic/exoteric modeling, but by reading between the 
lines of one's world, as opposed to getting trapped by 
them . . .>>>

G <<Oh oh, you are turning into a wolf...no no I don't 
want to go there...>>

Hmm. Is that wolfishness as in huffing and puffing in 
order to blow someone's house down? And I was under 
the impression that neither you, Gerald, nor Leon, were 
old and feeble granny's, anyway, to begin with, so . . . 
And don't you guys have your houses and models built 
with bricks, or at least with something sturdy enough 
(like "wisdom and Theosophics" . ..?) . . . ? Anyway, 
now you got me speculating about what wolfishness 
might mean, and (if I ever manage to figure anything 
much about that) I'll be likely trying to figure out about 
various ways that people might see wolfishness in various 
things. 

<<Nothing wrong with modeling so long as we are aware 
that it is just a model, one of many possible models. I 
wonder if Leon gives us his initial assumptions...I wonder 
if Leon even knows that his models all have initial
unprovable assumptions... The Theosophical community 
has two camps; one sees it as a set of "core teachings" 
and the other sees it as a process or Path. The former 
group are content with intellectual knowledge. The latter 
group see the intellectual knowledge as a bridge to 
experiential knowledge. >>>>>

I tend to think/speculate likewise . . . apparently . . . 

<<The Theosophical "core teachings" or "original 
writings" are themselves creative, and one needs to read 
most of them between the lines as well. >>

I tend to think/speculate likewise, but I wonder how 
Leon, Dallas, etc., might take that kind comment from 
you, Gerald. Apparently Leon doesn't even subscribe to 
this list.

M<<<But I suspect that as long as Theosophists confine 
their studies and attitudes within certain literalistic 
guidelines (which approach may, of course, be perfectly 
appropritate for some Theosophists, in consideration of
where they're at, "on their Path" . . .), then such literalism 
will confine their studies, might even tend to keep them 
from as much speculating about whatever transcendent 
aspects/relevance they might be inclined to at least
speculate about if they were less hampered, brainwashed, 
hypnotized by their current worldview.>>>

G<<OoohhhKaaaayyy. There is not one of us who write 
"outside the box" so to speak, where the "box" is our 
own worldview. Writing outside of one's own
worldview is nothing more or less than parroting 
someone else's words without understanding them, and 
this usually gets us into trouble. People with narrow
minds, minds that are already made up, cannot allow for 
speculation and "what ifs." On the other hand, too much 
speculative openess isn't going to help usmuch 
either...How about a balance?>>

Good answer, I tend to think . . . (especially that 
"ooohhhKaaaayyy" part). But (!), kindly note, though, 
that I used the word "appropitate," instead of 
"appropriate"!

M<<< If Theosophy is seen in terms of reasoning that 
unifies "self" and "other people," >>>

G<<We will never ever become unified people through 
"reasoning." Raise consciouness into the spiritual planes 
and directly experience the unity and oneness of our 
human life-wave, and then and only then will our unity 
be apparent.>>

Okay. I meant "reasoning" as per an "exoteric version."

<<Karma has to have a self or being of some kind upon 
which to function, or it can't function at all. The 
idea/concept of "my karma" has to have a "my" or it
doesn't hold up (ie karma assumes that an I exists). The 
teaching of freedom from karma lies in the realization 
that we have no "self" upon which any karma can work. 
Now this is one of those "dangerous" teachings, because 
it could give children the wrong idea that they can do 
anything they want with impunity. So this kind of 
teaching is not usually given to children. But the
anatman doctrine does not say that there is no atman, but 
rather that there is no inherent permanent atman; it says 
that atman is a conditional reality ---> and thus karma is 
a conditional reality as well. (I am telling you this Mauri,
but please keep the above away from your children lest 
they hurt themselves)>>

OK, mum's the word.

<<Do you realize how many lifetimes are required for us 
to know experientially that we are not being hammered 
on by others but rather are hammering ourselves? A 
bunch.>>

But/"but" . . . what if some of us learned to speculate a 
little more, maybe, about what makes for hammering of 
self, to begin with . . . instead of assuming along with the 
crowd about what's irrelevant and relevant . . . 

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Did I get you to look up "appropitate" in your 
dictionary? Hee hee. Well, maybe it's in some 
dictionary, somewhere, so . . . 

PPS Gotta go. Maybe will speculate about "motion" 
some other time . . .