Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00095)

In a message dated 12/26/02 2:16:39 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Leon wrote: <<Thinkers, and fellow searchers for truth, Isn't it 
>about time we finally stopped wasting all this endless time,
>millions of empty words and beating about the bush fruitlessly 
>trying to "scientifically" explain consciousness and will as a 
>function, corollary or epiphenomena of physical matter?>>
>
>Leon, as far as I can speculate, scientizings are okay within the 
>kind of mental climate (within which duality and maya are given 
>much reign) that they seem to be generally given vent to, in that, 
>after all, we wouldn't have our various modern scintific 
>advantages without the widespread prevalence of such venting, 
>would we? Seems to me as if your scientizings, Leon, might be 
>fine as far as they go ... but/"but"... what about mahayanics ...

Guess you just haven't speculated deep enough. :-) Remember... The unity of 
duality is the fundamental basis of dualism (which ultimately rests wihin an 
all inclusive monism). You can't have one without the other no matter how 
you look at it. You might as well compare what you meaninglessly call 
"mahayanics" with quantum mechanics, which also has a mayavic aspect (in its 
probability function) as well as a non-dualistic aspect (by seeing only the 
materialistic reality as being "everything"). You might also decide on which 
level of reality you are considering these things from -- instead of getting 
them all mixed up together in your speculations. Also, don't forget that 
"Mahayana" is an "interpretation" of the Buddha's exoteric teachings that is 
only one out of three views -- each of which have their "logical" means of 
determining what is "real" and what is "illusion." If you want to get caught 
spinning your wheels in the middle of this controversy, that's your choice. 
But, it would be helpful to us if you did it inside your own head. :-) 

>If "logic" (that's rather inescapably dualistic, in essense, as far as
>I can see/speculate) is seen as the prime culprit in that, (as the 
>word implies?), it's a manasic, karmic means of coping within 
>duality (isn't it?), then why would Theosophists, in particular, 
>(who, one might think, might have some interest in transcending 
>logic and duality?), want to transcend or even "understand 
>about" duality by any means that might seem as if they might be 
>somewhat too "logical" too exclusively (not that "exoteric" isn't 
>"exoteric" any which way you slice it, but/"but"...), seeing as 
>dualistic venting (or the mainstream worldview), in general, 
>might be one of the chief reasons why the esoteric tradition 
>exists, to begin with, as a "way out" of logic/maya, in a sense? 
>Not that ...

Logic can be either dualistic or non-dualistic. However, no one can 
"explain" reality in such simplistic terms. But, theosophists, each for 
themselves, have to learn to see/perceive/comprehend the universal (or 
conditioned) space both from the inside out and from the outside in. From 
one point of view it is a complete holistic unity. From the other, it is a 
perceived duality. From either view, alone, it is what Buddhist's call Maya. 
The connection between the two views can only be understood by the 
application of both logically consistent rational and graphical thinking -- 
which can bring these twin Mayas into an interrelated reality that one can 
comprehend from both points of view simultaneously. Since this dual point of 
view has to be examined individually -- whether the Absolute space is 
manifest as conditioned space, or not -- there are actually four separate 
points of view that have to be merged for a complete understanding of the 
ultimate reality. Let's think of that, then, not as "dualism," but 
"quaternaryism" (which includes monism, dualism, and trinitism). But those 
are only words, and such "symbols" can never be the things or ideas in 
themselves that they represent. 

Therefore one cannot (while in the body and under the influence of both 
manifest matter and spirit) arrive at an intuitive grasp of total reality 
(with the accompanying ability to be entirely "aware" of and act 
intelligently as a pure consciousness in either condition or aspect of 
absolute "space") -- without examining and fully understanding, by means of 
logical reasoning, both 
unconditioned and conditioned space as well as matter and spirit (and their 
interconnections) from each opposite direction of view. Writing these 
understandings down or speculating on them in words and diagrams can only 
hint at their true meaning, or obscure them even further. (But, those who 
can really "see" the true reality that is both empty and full, one and many, 
subjective and objective -- can only "try" -- like HPB did) The only mistake 
is not qualifying the point of view, or level of consciousness from which the 
symbolic observations come from.

Therefore, no matter how, and from what point of view the absolute or 
conditioned space is examined -- the fundamental scientific laws of 
mathematical geometry and "electricity," that govern their interaction, and 
cyclic transformation from one to the other, is paramount. Thus, both 
unified and dualistic thinking is required, separately as well as 
conjunctively. This will allow one to understand that one "reality" gives 
birth to the other in an endless cycle of existence's, either as a 
conditioned duality within a trinity, or an unconditioned unity -- which, 
together, remain forever an inseparable quadratic reality within the heart of 
the Boundless ALL. (ref: "The 3 the 1, the 4 the 1 the 5, the twice 7 the sum 
total" -- a multidimensional "scientific" [geometric/mathematical] formula 
for Cosmogenesis -- which Buddha never revealed). 

Mahayana Buddhism, then, appears to consider only the one central part of 
this triple equation -- which is enough to keep their practitioners from 
being confused by and pulled toward the extremes. This was the wisdom of the 
followers of Shankaracharya who accepted Buddhism from its Mahayana, 
non-dualistic point of view. All well and good for those who are devoted to 
following its philosophical Bodhisattva precepts. But, on the other hand, 
theosophists are not necessarily Buddhists of any stripe -- but, self 
determined seekers of the whole truth as a "synthesis of science, religion, 
and philosophy." Thus, my attempts to put theosophy in a scientific context 
-- both rationally and graphically, and bring it up to date in this age of 
scientific credibility -- is a necessary aspect of universal truth that has 
been seriously overlooked by most students in the past 100 years. Science is 
the primary basis of Cosmogenesis that determines the underlying reality of 
pre and post phenomenal (physical) existence, and gives credence to the laws 
of karma and reincarnation, that is the foundation for the religious and 
philosophical views that can help determine or govern human goals, purposes, 
and activities. The conscious Chohanic "Architects of the Cosmos" could not 
have done their work unless they understood the fundamental (universal) 
scientific and engineering laws that underlay their "constructions." 
Therefore, metaphysical science comes before everything else -- except pure 
spirit (or consciousness) and raw matter (or abstract motion). 

To make a fixed distinction between exoteric and esoteric, subjective and 
objective, misunderstanding (delusion) and understanding (comprehension) -- 
when considering the unity in the duality and the duality in the unity (which 
are constantly changing in gradually varying degrees from one into to the 
other, and vice versa, without changing their fundamental unity) -- is just 
meaningless tautological word play. 

To grasp this diffusion and transformation of opposites, along with their 
ultimate 7 fold unity in accordance with the (scientific) laws of harmony, is 
to end, once and for all, speculating about what is or is not the "true 
reality" -- which can never be put into words alone, but must forever be 
based on scientifically sound fundamental principles coupled with intuitive 
visualization extending through at least five spatial dimensions or field 
phases... This can never be verbally (although it can be mathematically) 
explained. But, it can be envisioned by direct inner experience -- where one 
can actually "see" Patanjali's "ultimate division of time" -- which leads to 
instant enlightenment.

Such a necessarily rational understanding of reality (which you might call 
"scientizing") also has its complement. And, that is the irrational (pure 
ideational) comprehension of the inherent harmony of all nature, the 
inevitability and immutability of the laws of karma and reincarnation, and 
the necessity of its compassionate unity -- leading to the practice of 
universal brotherhood and altruism...

So I have heard from the Master.

I hope this goes a little way toward helping end our confusion. :-)

LHM 

>Speculatively,
>Mauri
>