Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00251)

Sorry, I accidentally sent this post to Theos-1 as well.

This is in response to Leon's post: "re 'for themselves,'"
which is at the end of this post.

Having received permission from Gerald S. to post his 
comments here, this following from him seems relevant, in 
a sense, as I see it, to what might be seen as the role and 
potential of various forms of human or manasic thought, 
dicrimination, intuition, speculation as applied toward the 
topics of duality, maya, and non-duality. Quoting from 
Gerald:

<<<The Zen Master would point to the moon, and then 
warn his students not to mistake the finger pointing to the 
moon for the moon itself. Our mental images and 
cnceptualizations are like pointing fingers. Have you ever 
tasted a peach? If so, you can probably write a verbal
description of the taste of a peach that was pretty accurate. 
But what would your description mean to someone who 
had never tasted a peach? It would just be words. If 
someone else who had also tasted a peach read your 
description they might say, "Aha, he knows." This is 
because verbal descriptions of experiential knowledge 
make sense to those who have also had those
experiences. But those folks who have not had the actual 
experience will make no sense of it. They will, at best, try 
to form mental conceptions of it, and will likely think that 
they understand perfectly. As with the taste of a
peach, so spiritual experiences have to be experienced in 
order to be understood. We all experience duality, but 
nonduality remains a concept until it is experienced.
We see a tree, for example, and we think that a real thing 
or object exists externally to and independent of us. 
Actually there is no such thing as a tree per se. What we 
really see are billions of parts arranged into a certain shape
that we name, by convention, "tree." The very lack of 
"treeness," or "thingness" is what Buddhism calls 
emptiness. We posit that a "tree" exists based on the shape 
of those parts. But no tree as such exists. We can continue
in this vein, for all objects whatsoever. None have any real 
"thingness" to them, but are simply collections of parts 
arranged into shapes and given names. All phenomena are 
empty of "thingness" or "suchness." This is also true
of "persons." This dependent interconnecting network of 
parts and names forms our conditional reality. The fact that 
there is nothing "real" to anything at all forms our ultimate 
reality. If we look at Blavatsky's 7-plane model of the
universe, conditional reality includes the lower four planes, 
and ultimate reality includes the upper three planes. Thus 
our entire universe is one where phenomena effortlessly 
rise up in dependence on causes and conditions, dance
for awhile, and then recede back to their origin. And what 
is this origin? It is the Ground of all manifestation, the 
Source of both matter and spirit, of both conditional reality 
and ultimate reality. It is often called nonduality.
Blavatsky called it Beness. This Beness is ineffable, as 
ineffable as the taste of a peach, or the beauty of sunset, or 
the emptiness of a tree. It can be experienced, but 
descriptions of it are simply conceptualizations that are 
meaningful to those who have already experienced it and 
meaningless to those who have not. Jerry S.>>>>
============end of quote

As I see it, one cannot transcend mayavic reality by any 
amount of mayavic/dualistic reasoning. Thas is, while 
Theosophy may be seen to have value and wisdom, those 
are, after all, the dualistic/exoteric aspects or "versions" of 
reality/truth (not that such aspects are any less real within 
that context). As I see it, Leon, your models/values can 
optionally be seen as containing "correctness" in them (as 
per whatever current or traditional logical/interpretive 
tendency in dualistic terms), but, at the same time, in as 
much as such models/values are dualistic, they are also 
mayavic . . . 

As I see it, in order for Theosophists, or people in general, 
to acquire more and more meaningful intuitive or 
speculative or thoughtful means of "bridging towards" (at 
least) some kind of "esoteric (as opposed to 
exoteric/theoretical) sense" or appreciation, by way of 
whatever clues or means, (that might be apparent, real, 
logical, interpretive, speculative, experiential, etc) "about 
the bigger picture" (in terms of "logical Theosophy" or in 
whatever interpretive/intuitive terms), then, as I see it, 
such bridging might in some cases be somewhat facilitated 
by a certain kind of freedom of thought that 
(alternatively?) might be seen as related to speculation . . . 

But if one's basic freedom of thought and speculativeness 
are discouraged for whatever reason, how can one 
ascertain anything "more meaningfully" ("for better or 
worse") for oneself and more-directly address one's karma 
. . . I tend to see our speculations as karmic carry-overs of 
the kind that, if left unaddressed, will keep on festering, in 
a sense, like a sore. I tend to see Theosophy, for example, 
as expressive of both current and traditional karmic 
(carry-over) meaning of the kind that, if addressed with 
mere logic (dualisticity) will keep on festering, carrying 
over in the form of dualisticity, and so, in (some cases?), a 
somewhat more oblique or abstract or speculative method 
might, as I see it, be seen as having a "more relevant role," 
(within the confines of one's attempts to gain a certain 
helpful perspective toward duality, traditional logic, and 
maya), as compared to what might be seen as the use of a 
logic that's more linear, traditional, mainstream, "more 
apparently reliable," etc. 

I tend to see potential in certain kinds of speculations as a 
means by which one might gain a certain "alternative 
perpsective," say, towards maya and the straight jackets of 
traditional logic, worldviews, duality. But whether the 
"addressing of one's speculations" will yield much or little 
in the way of a helpful alternative perspective is, of course, 
a highly individual, or self-confrontational matter. If 
Theosohy is studied and believed in in its literal sense, on 
the other hand, that approach might, in many cases (?), 
seem more relevant than a speculativeness that might seem 
less realistic, hard to pin down, abstract, unreliable, 
illogical, etc. . . 

Speculatively,
Mauri
=======================================

Oct 29 Leon wrote:

<<<Thinking for oneself about the validity of theosophical 
teachings has nothing to do with interpretation, nor is there 
anything speculative about theosophy. 

Its metaphysical teachings are a complete system, sui 
generis in itself, that either is or is not the way the universe 
must (by dependence on fundamental principles that are 
unassailable) have involved and evolved. 

In no way does this theory -- starting from the zero-point 
"spinergy" (absolute abstract motion), and progressing 
logically and mathematically according to fundamental 
laws of "electricity," cycles, and periodicity to its present 
state -- contradict any of the theories of reductive or 
empirical science (that are based solely on the final 
objective/physical phase of universal Cosmogenesis). In 
fact, beginning with relativity and quantum physics and 
extending to their final synthesis in Superstring/M-brane 
mathematics, theosophy has completely anticipated and 
presaged all these theories. 

Therefore, after careful thinking about their inherent 
reasonableness, one can either accept the theosophical 
metaphysical concepts as they are presented, or come up 
with another theory that is equally consistent based on 
those same principles or propositions. There is no other 
choice -- except skeptical denial based on false beliefs, 
ignorance or thoughtlessness. 

Since theosophy, through its metaphysical processes, has 
demonstrated the inherent unity of all beings in the 
universe, all further conclusions relating to the laws of 
karma, the eternality of consciousness and temporality of 
matter, along with the inherent justice that prevails with 
respect to the willful actions of conscious human beings 
that alter the harmony of universal causation, follows by 
logical deduction. To speculate at this level of 
understanding, is an exercise in futility that leads us 
nowhere (either from a subjective or objective point of 
view) toward a better understanding of the true nature of 
reality. 

Thinking for oneself, therefore, must follow logical 
progressions of cause and effect that lead to concrete 
conclusions and firm convictions. Otherwise 
one gets lost in a maelstrom of inconclusiveness and 
confusion.

Absolutely,
LHM>>>>> 

PS I tend to agree with you Leon, in a sense . . . But just 
"in a sense"