Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00897)

Mauri, I see you didn't take my advice -- NOT to answer those questions 
except in your own mind -- to yourself. Since the answers do not require 
words (which are left brain functions) but are designed to awaken your right 
brain visual imaginative and open the channel between right and left brain -- 
while giving your higher nature a chance to meet your lower nature. See them 
as Zen koans that require graphical thinking (and doing), rather than words, 
to understand. 

As it is, I can't understand anything you said -- which appears to be a 
perfect example of left brain thinking gone into a spiral spin that could 
eventually turn into a vicious circle that might be very hard to escape from. 
And, I am sorry that you didn't take my advice -- since by not doing so you 
fell into the trap of twisting your mind (and anyone else who reads your 
explanation) into continuing confusion and ultimately arriving at a complete 
non comprehension of the true nature of reality (which cannot be described, 
even speculatively, in words -- no matter how complex you make your sentences 
or vaguely use foreign words that have multiple meanings). Einstein said, "If 
you can't explain your theories to a child of seven, then they aren't worth 
the paper they are written on." (Even I have trouble meeting those 
qualifications -- although, I explained my theory of ABC to a 9 year old and 
she said, "That's cool." I suppose she got it. :-) 

If and when you do get it, you will understand why the only speculations 
allowed in this game (that is if you really want to know) -- is to look at 
each side of the questions and meditatively examine each alternative 
possibility by logical deduction starting with a picture in the mind. Compare 
both possibilities, and select which answer most closely fits your directly 
experienced reality -- that can be tested objectively or as a mind 
experiment. Then, transfer your understanding step by step up the ladder of 
consciousness levels until you reach your spiritual consciousness and can 
"see" your God nature, and can "show" him (or her or it) your answers. Only 
in that way you will find the correlation's between the exoteric (which can 
be spoken about) and the esoteric (which cannot be spoken about) -- and 
leastwise speculated about.

Remember, nothing that one thinks which matches what one experiences can be 
illusory to the one doing the thinking. Whatever level consciousness one is 
on, that level is real to the experiencer. Therefore, the lower level of 
physical nature can be considered an illusion to the higher level of Brahma 
nature -- but not to itself. One has to live in the world, yet can still 
remain outside of it.

As advice to anyone else who may read these letters; I suggest they follow my 
advice and use those questions solely as seeds for meditation. And, be very 
cautious in reading any written answers by others, lest you fall into the 
same mind twisting trap as this writer. (Although, it's okay to read these 
speculations with the same attitude as if you were listening to that old 
radio comedian, "The Professor" -- If you are old enough to remember him. :-) 
The best one could say about it is, it's at least entertaining.

Forgive me my tongue in cheek brusqueness, Mauri, but I am trying to be 
helpful to everyone who reads these letters -- positively -- yet, without 
apearing pedantic, and being taken too seriously. No reason that the search 
for truth can't be fun, is there?

LHM


In a message dated 11/24/02 8:48:34 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Leon wrote: <<Is the geometric center (zero-point) of a 
>turning wheel moving linearly through phenomenal space 
>in the same manner as is a point on the circumference -- 
>or not? If not, is it in non linear, circular motion 
>(spinning) -- or not? >>
>
>I seem to generally respond to those kinds of 
>words/concepts from a somewhat different angle than 
>you, Leon. So my following comments might suggest to 
>you that I avoided or didn't understand the issues that 
>you might've seen youself as having been concerned 
>about in that post.
>
>Your "center/zero point" brought to mind the dualistics 
>involved in reference making, in general, to begin with, 
>amomg other things: in other words, to me, the concept 
>of "center" implies the existence/creation (in terms of "a 
>karmic variable," if you prefer . . .) of a dualistic medium 
>of the kind that one can define/describe so as to posit a 
>"center" into it; but surely HPB's references to a "center 
>or zero point" had an esoteric aspect to them, as well, 
>that no dualistic/literal interpretation, alone, would do 
>justice to?
>
>As I see it, in dualistic terms (what other kinds are there, 
>one might ask, justifiably?): The concept of a center 
>implies or posits---as per one's 
>apparent/experiential/karmic/interpretive "sense of 
>reality"---a medium of duality as the ground in which 
>such references "can be made" and in which they would 
>become/appear "real enough."
>
>As I see it, a "center," by definition, within duality, (or 
>within dualistic, manasic reference making), can ONLY 
>exist within that dualistic paradigm/model, which is 
>another way of saying that all "centers" in dualistic terms 
>are mayavic, (as per the esoteric tradition), arising out of 
>karmic "initial assumptions," which, in turn, relate back 
>to, depend on, whatever karmic/dualistic engagements 
>are "seen" (as per a manasic/karmic effect) to "have 
>occurred" (as per "that kind" of mayavic, "logical 
>progression") as "causative" within a linearity that 
>(within that mayavic progression) literally has no 
>beginning, no "real enough cause" and, being causeless 
>other than in whatever interpretive/apparent 
>comparative/dualistic terms, is extensively dependent on 
>its "reality" on karma and duality; and so such centers 
>are, therefore, in that sense, as I see it, mayavic (as per 
>the esoteric tradition).
>
>Not that I'm promoting some kind of out-of-hand 
>negation of various dualistic versions, models, 
>Theosophics. But/"but" . . .
>
>And not that such short-comings (maya) seem to bother 
>mainstreamers much in the sense that, generally, as I see 
>it, most humans don't seem to ruminate much over basic 
>unreality, aside from various particulars? As I see it, 
>there's a mainstream, manasic tendency to follow the 
>kind of "logic" (ie, relevance making within a 
>"collectively agreed about worldview") that a 
>collective/karmic/dualistic medium/ground would seem 
>to give least resistance to, from whatever interpretive 
>perspective.
>
>I tend to see a basic aspect of "centers" in terms of the 
>kind of "logical progressiveness" adopted and karmically 
>engaged in by manas (that karmic/"logical" progressivity 
>or evolving process lending itself to manasic defining in 
>terms of "human senses"), so I tend to see 
>"centers/centering" as suggestive of manasic products of 
>perception supported/"influenced" by karma and duality 
>to the extent that they have evolved into various realities, 
>worlds, worldviews, sciences, and exoterics in general: ie, 
>it's as if there's a parallel between centric/reductionistic 
>(or karmic/interpretive) "manasic initial assumptions" 
>and the perceived/apparent (mayavic) mainstream 
>worldview.
>
>My simpler explanation for the preceding: Watch out for 
>those wooden nickels, eh!
>
><<Is the concept in our mind of the existence of the 
>zero-point an "illusion" -- or not? Is EIN-SOPH a 
>zero-point -- or not? >>
>
>Since those are relational (dualistic, maya-related) 
>questions, what's the point in asking them? 
>Well . . . Anyway, I just offered my versions of 
>answers for those kinds of questions, and for the 
>following from the rest of your 
>post, Leon:
>
><<Does the zero-point EXIST as the starting or 
>"Absolute SPACE" of all emanation of the lines of force 
>that involve into the seven fold coenergetic fields that are 
>the changeable and temporary, yet cyclically repeating
>playgrounds of all our states of consciousness in 
>"phenomenal space"? -- or not? Are these states REAL 
>when we experience them -- or not? Are the noumena of 
>these states in the zero-point, REAL (i.e., existent) --
>or not If all phenomena in the universe is subject to their 
>opposites, is the emptiness of the zero-point the opposite 
>of the fullness of its noumenal Force (or spinergy) as well 
>as the fullness of the Cosmos (or mass/energy) -- or not?
>Does the initial light that radiates out of the absolute 
>zero-point travel much faster than the light (c) that 
>radiates from of the physical "Big Bang" zero-point 
>(Einstein's "singularity") -- or not? Is the Scientific, 
>Philosophical, and Religious knowledge (as inseparable 
>and interrelated, factual realities) i. e., knowing who and 
>what we are, where we came from, where we are going, 
>and how we get there, necessary to be thoroughly 
>examined and understood intuitively in equal measure, or 
>synthetically -- for theosophists or any followers of 
>religious dogmas to achieve enlightenment, SELF 
>realization, and attaining adeptship -- or not? Is the 
>"Scientific" knowledge, verifying the unity of all things 
>important as the foundation for theosophy's "Religious" 
>(moral-ethical) convictions -- or not? LHM (P.S.; There's 
>no need to answer these questions -- except to the
>satisfaction of your higher Self -- who already knows. 
>;-)>>>>>>>
>==========end of quote
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri
>
>PS Anyway, the preceding was my exoteric version.
>For those who would prefer my esoteric treatment of the 
>same, here's my helpful suggestion: just put quotes on all 
>my words, and then read it again.
>
>PPS Well, in a sense, I was kidding about the quotes for 
>"my esoteric version," but, on second thought, (or first 
>thought . . .) in a sense I wasn't kidding, so . . . ^:-) . . . 
>I'm kind of alternately scratching my head and chuckling
>(which is really nothing new, but/"but". . .).