Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00326)

In a message dated 01/18/04 12:12:07 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Leon wrote: <<Actually, I was talking 
>in multidimensional terms.>>
>
>After I wrote that post in which I 
>wrote: "but if that's talking in 
>two-dimensional terms," it occurred to 
>me that you might come back with 
>something like: <<Actually, I was 
>talking in multidimensional terms.>> 
>and, sure enough, you did just that.
>
>My attempt to clarify: When I have a 
>number of times used the words 
>"essentially dualistic," on these lists, 
>that's been my way of saying that no 
>matter how "multidimensional" one might 
>want one's model or worldview to be, 
>it's still, in my humble speculative 
>opinion, an "essentially dualistic" 
>view, and, as such, is karmic, mayavic, 
>and without end, as such. And so, 
>IMHSO, the Esoteric Tradition has been 
>pointing the way out of such karma/maya. 
> Not that I have anything against 
>models that are helpful, as your ABC's 
>might be, Leon, to some people, 
>including myself, and as Gerald's models 
>might be seen as helpful. But I suspect 
>that, at a certain point, one has to 
>transcend essentially dualistic models 
>of reality, no matter how 
>"multidimentional" they may be seen to 
>be. Seems to me, based on my 
>interpretation of Theosophy/HBP, that 
>there's an Abyss between essentially 
>dualistic reality and the Reality that's 
>experiential and nondualistic. That's 
>basically the kind of thing I have been 
>trying to get across for some time. 
>Sorry about the misunderstandings.
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri

Mauri,

Nice to know that you can read my mind. :-) And thanks for acknowledging 
that my attempts to describe the esoteric multidimensional unity using dualistic 
exoteric models such as ABC, can be helpful for "some people" searching for 
essential truth. 

Of course, I'm sure you also understand that I never separated this outside 
in Jnana yoga intellectual way from the yogas of direct inside out meditative 
perception of such truth... Besides Patanjali's Rajah yoga and the Dhyana yoga 
of The Voice of the Silence, your Buddhist-Advaitan non-dual way being just 
another similar approach.

Nevertheless, we still can't deny the usefulness and importance of exoteric 
explanation of the methodologies as well as the underlying philosophies behind 
these approaches. (That's probably why HPB gave us Isis and the SD before the 
VOS.) 

So, it's obvious that knowledge must come before application, and that wisdom 
is knowledge applied correctly. 

So, without that intellectual knowledge, the individual's meditative 
understanding of essential reality can do no one else any good. And, for the true 
theosophist (Bodhisattva) who wishes to help and teach others, such ignorance of 
the dualistic exoteric means to explain the esoteric unity, makes him/her 
completely impotent when dealing with those who need to know before they do. 

Therefore, I'm also, glad to hear that you understand all that, and that in 
order to point someone toward an inner (esoteric) experiential and 
non-dualistic understanding of the infinite abstract reality or unity -- they have to 
first hear about it, and try to visualize it through the medium of the concrete 
finite words and pictures that can only describe things as opposites and 
duality's -- which, of course, not being the real things in themselves are illusory 
(Maya) if taken literally. The trick is knowing how to transcend those 
duality's and absorb the essential unity within oneself. 

Yet, in dealing with the world as it interfaces with us on the plane of 
matter, we must also, not become so abstract in our thinking that we stop trying to 
avoid that illusory, dualistic herd of mayavic elephants stampeding toward us 
-- lest we get smashed flat and lose our ability to finish learning our 
lessons. :-) This is what Buddha meant, when he said, after dualistically 
explaining the monistic unity in the Dammapada -- we should remain "always vigilant."

So, if that is what all your rambling speculations with circular reasoning 
and coined words with vague meanings is all about -- it's wonderful that you 
have finally been able to describe what you were trying to get across in simple, 
non speculative terms we all can understand. 

So, now that every one of us know all that, you can stop speculating -- other 
than, perhaps, to use such a provocative technique to draw out the answers to 
the questions you (and all those you are trying to help understand) have to 
ask those who might know how to describe the unity, or point out the path to 
finding it... (Even though, unfortunately, in the dualistic terms that they are 
forced to use -- including HPB, besides the Buddha) 

However, we must understand, that when you consider the concrete reality of 
the mayavic duality's vs. the abstract REALITY of the absolute unity, you are 
still categorizing these two opposites as an essential duality. Seems there's 
no way to avoid that, whenever we try to get a point across that lies between, 
beyond or around those two extremes. 

But, to talk about the Absolute reality is pointless since it is ineffable. 
So, all we can do is talk about the mayavic duality's, with the hope that 
others may intuitively see the essential trinity these duality's are parts of (and 
understand how, together, they are an inseparable, fundamental unity whose 
beginning is also its ending).

Therefore, when we speak about any manifest phenomena there is also no way to 
understand its underlying noumenal essence, except by "reading in and around 
the words and between the lines" (HPB), and "using your intuition tempered by 
your reason" (WQJ) to comprehend the actual esoteric meaning behind its 
exoteric expression. 

So, thanks for letting us know that that's what you understand. Maybe, then, 
from here on out -- you can stop trying to speculatively (and redundantly) 
get that point across to us, and start commenting on or questioning the 
teachings, and their correlation's directly -- without all the beating around the bush 
trying to figure out whether it exists or not... Even though we all could 
easily reach right out and touch it, as well as discover what it's made of, 
where it came from, and how it got there, and see the differences or duality's (as 
well as the unity's) between the ground, the seeds, the roots, the trunk, the 
branches, the leaves, the flowers, and the Sun that feeds them all. (And, 
then, when we know all that in microcosmic reality, see the allegorical 
connection with the macrocosmic reality 

Best wishes,

Leon