Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00584)

Analytically, you can define any amount of dimensional space, there 
could be a hundred dimensions, in other words, although such a 
geometry might exist only in thought and not in the real world.
But apparently you can't read the mathematics. 

You mention a device to produce free-energy, but does it exist , or 
is that also just hypothetically (fiction/fantasy )?

http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/solwldcrystpos
ter.html#anchor1097781

Bri.

> 
> In a message dated 03/23/02 3:51:32 PM, bri_mue@y... writes: '
> [Quoting Jerry Schueler, followed by the usual hodgepodge of non 
sequitur 
> historical and illogically prejudiced "proofs" (snipped) that the 
> theosophical chakra system of 7 fold coadunate but not 
consubstantial fields 
> is a false, unscientific view.]
> 
> >Jerry: I find this something like using a shoe horn to get a small 
> >shoe onto a large foot. I take this "antiquity" business with a 
grain 
> >of salt. There is absolutely NO reason that anyone can show as to 
why 
> >7 is necessary or better than 6 or 5. The Enochian system works 
well 
> >with 6. Tibetan Buddhism works well with 5. Seven is arbitrary.
> >You will seldom find any 7-sheath models in Hinduism or Buddhism 
or 
> >Vedanta. Row was a Theosophist and was reaching. Most schemes have 
> >five or six sheaths. And are these sheaths principles or bodies? 
It 
> >is still confusing. Judge and Besant both confounded bodies and 
> >principles as if they were the same thing. G de P says that each 
> >principle has a corresponding body or vehicle (upadhi). HPB says 
that 
> >each plane is associated with a principle. And so it goes, with 
> >Theosophists today still arguing and debating on what it all means.
> >This sevenfold division is very arbitrary and is NOT the way 
things 
> >are experienced. It is purely a Theosophical methodology and if we 
> >can all accept that, we will be better off. There is nothing wrong 
> >with having our own divisions of 7, and such a division works well 
> >for me, but we need to recognize and accept that it is arbitrary 
and 
> >NOT some kind of law of nature.
> 
> The above statements indicate that your ideas are perhaps based on 
literally 
> interpreted dogmas that fit with your own preconceptions and with 
your, 
> possibly, mistaken interpretations of the Buddha's as well as HPB's 
teachings 
> -- which are quite paradoxical within themselves -- since both 
teachers were 
> faced with two opposite states of existence along with all the 
possible 
> intermediate states, further confounded by their language barriers 
or losses 
> in translation. Therefore, we must be very careful to look at 
their contrary 
> statements about divisions of space with very careful consideration 
of the 
> contextual nature as well as the stage of involution and/or 
evolution they 
> are referring to -- coupled with a thorough understanding of and 
ability to 
> apply fundamental principles -- before making any judgments that we 
are 
> tempted to cut in stone. 
> 
> Maybe we should also stop looking at contradictory historical ideas 
and other 
> people's concepts to gain knowledge of metaphysical truths, and 
start 
> thinking for ourselves based on fundamental principles... That is, 
to 
> scientifically derive in our own minds where all these different 
divisions 
> come from, and how they fit in with the overall truth; Which is 
that, the 
> differentiation's of primary space and its fundamental "spinergy" 
is 
> ultimately infinitely divisible... With "strange attractors" along 
the way 
> that bring, at different stages, differing degrees of order out of 
the 
> initial chaos. Thus the basic divisions 
or "orders," "phases," "planes," 
> "fields," etc., could be any number from two to a googolplex. 
Although, the 
> lower numbers from two to twenty-one tend to repeat themselves 
periodically 
> along the way. 
> 
> Therefore, there's no reason for the divisions of "coadunate but 
not 
> consubstantial fields" of nature not to be based on fundamental 
laws of 
> energy involution and evolution, starting from their zero (laya) 
points of 
> origin. 
> 
> Since this starting point is composed solely of abstract motion or 
circular 
> spin, its emanations must obey the fixed laws of cycles and 
periodicity which 
> govern all the harmonics of vibrational energy fields -- regardless 
of their 
> spectrums, phases or orders of frequency -- from astral light to 
physical 
> sound (and even lower to gravitational waves). Therefore, all the 
field 
> involution's must follow the same laws of musical harmony -- which 
can be 
> divided into either octaval, decimal or duodecimal scales -- as HPB 
> repeatedly pointed out. As for these divisions, they can also be 
broken down 
> into two, three, four, five, six, seven, ten, twelve, etc., 
subdivisions or 
> harmonics. 
> 
> Since complete harmonies on the physical plane can be generated, 
starting 
> with the simplest seven fold system, this is the basis of choosing 
the 7 
> chakras which correspond with the octaval musical harmonies, and 
color scales 
> or spectrums we directly experience. But, in some cultures where 
their 
> musical scales are based on the decimal or duodecimal system, it is 
common to 
> choose such a "chakra" (center) or "sheath" (field) system (to 
describe the 
> human "nature") -- that can be divided into either 3, 4, 5, or 6 
fields -- 
> depending on the particular nature (spiritual, psychological, 
material, etc.) 
> of the involved or evolved field effects that is being discussed. 
> 
> Thus, some "magical" systems are based on the 5 divisions and 
others on the 6 
> divisions. (For reasons there is no need to go into here.) But, 
> fundamentally, all these systems are governed by the same 
scientific laws 
> related to the coadunate but not consubstantial coenergetic and 
cyclic field 
> nature of the universe (along with the analogous inner natures of 
all the 
> beings involved and evolved within it). These laws of harmony as 
well as of 
> analogy and correspondence are described in mystic parlance 
as, "The music of 
> the spheres" and "As above, so below." 
> 
> Another good study practice, is to visualize the varying linear 
geometry's of 
> the initial involution of the nonlinear circular forces -- using 
both the 
> linear left and nonlinear right brain thought processes, 
simultaneously. For 
> example, from a geometric point of view, at the zero-point, in 
order to 
> linearly describe the primal at(o)mic 3 dimensional spherical state 
after 
> initial emanation of the zero (laya) point's "spinergy," there 
would be, 
> fundamentally, only three directional lines passing through that 
center point 
> at right angles -- each line pointing in opposite directions. 
> 
> Thus the initial 3-dimensional spherical field can be represented 
in linear 
> geometry by the 6 directions, up-down, left-right, front-back -- 
which, by 
> connecting their axial end points, forms an inscribed octahedron or 
double 
> pyramid diamond figure that has 3 axes, 6 outer points and 1 center 
point, as 
> well as 8 triangular sides and 12 edges. This is the simplest 
inscribed 
> linear geometry (that can also be transformed into a cube, which 
has 1 center 
> point, 8 outer points, 6 sides and 12 edges) -- representing, 
analogously, 
> the nonlinear spherical geometry of the 3 cycle primary energy 
radiation and 
> its divisions into triune, coadunate but not consubstantial fields 
that forms 
> the primal "Monad." (See the diagrams at: 
> 
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.ht
ml/ )
> 
> Thus -- since the octahedron is the simplest analogous form, with 
its 7 
> zero-points of origin and conjunction of subsequent evolutionary 
fields (all 
> based on the initial 3 cycle triune "monad" consisting of 1 outer 
field and 2 
> inscribed inner fields) -- it is most natural to use the initial 
seven 
> division system as the fundamental nature of the macrocosm, or 
Cosmos, that 
> is directly reflected in the microcosm, or Mankind (that also 
relates 
> directly to our three dimensional physical universe). This 
corresponds with 
> the primal involution formula in the Book of Dzyan, "The 3, the 1, 
the 4, the 
> 1, the 5, the twice 7, the sum total." (Thus, the 7 above, and the 
7 below 
> -- as the first numerological description of the analogous 
relationship 
> between the "chakra-fields" of the macrocosm and those of the 
microcosm.) 
> This is the fundamental and lawful mathematical (geometrical and 
topological) 
> basis of all theosophical metaphysics. And, is the root of all 
other systems, 
> each of which is based on one of the seven points of view of the 
initial 
> triune spin field. Unfortunately, the current basis of scientific 
thought, 
> while it can look into and describe the physical universe from its 
six outer 
> or objective points of view, does not consider the equally valid 
inner 
> central or subjective point of view -- and, thus, cannot experience 
or 
> determine the nature of the multidimensional inner, coadunate but 
not 
> consubstantial fields that are enclosed and contained by the 
relatively 
> eternal at(o)mic field.
> 
> This octaval scheme, of course, has nothing to do with magic -- 
since it is 
> used only to describe the fundamental or primary 7 fold nature of 
> Cosmogenesis and its reflection in corresponding fields of human 
> consciousness, along with the linking of the dual spiritual nature, 
through 
> the dual psychic nature, with the dual physical nature through 
their 5 
> intermediate connecting zero-points tying these dual fields 
together. In 
> addition, there are the 2 outer points linking the higher and lower 
> (frequency) order fields (Atma and physical) with the surrounding 
universal 
> fields (Mahatma and Fohat). Thus, totaling 7 chakra points in all -
- which, 
> correlated with the initial at(o)mic triad, gives us the total of 
ten as 
> expressed in the so called "Trees of life," (symbolized either 
circularly or 
> linearly, depending on whether we look at the paths either as 8 
nonlinear c
> oadunate spherical fields and 3 zero points as 8 linear geometrical 
divisions 
> of the octahedron and three primary axes). 
> 
> That, incidentally, is the basis of the three plus seven fold, four 
level 
> spherical chakra system that is analogous with the similarly 
numbered linear 
> system -- since the zero-points and their surrounding coenergetic 
fields are, 
> by necessity, with respect to the perpendicular force of gravity 
and the 
> symmetry of the human body, lined up along the vertical axis. Ref: 
the SD 
> linear drawings of the Rounds and Races, and the Sephirothal tree, 
as well as 
> the symbolic initial involution field drawing at the above 
mentioned web 
> site. These seven points (below the triple "crown") are 
the "chakras" spoken 
> of in theosophical teachings and some Tibetan Buddhist teachings, 
and 
> represent the seven fold nature of both the macrocosm and the 
microcosm. 
> 
> However, magical practices (which, incidentally, theosophy does not 
consider 
> useful to teach outside the inner circles of avowed "chelas") use 
other d
> ivisions based, symbolically, on the hexagon and pentagon 2-D 
geometry's... 
> (That are all, incidentally -- as parts of 3-D icosahedron and 
dodecahedron 
> geometry's -- contained within or projected from the primary 3-D 
octahedron 
> and cubic geometry's.) 
> 
> Interestingly, some 25 years ago, I built a 3-dimensional toothpick 
model of 
> that projection in a mobile sculpture that contained a logical 
progression of 
> all five regular polygons, one nested inside the other. It's also 
> interesting that, if you assemble 6 octahedrons together, edge to 
edge, they 
> form a larger octahedron with 8 tetrahedron voids centered on its 
triangular 
> surfaces -- yet the larger octahedron still has 6 outer apex points 
and 1 
> center point (=7). This multiplication of octahedrons inscribed in 
spheres 
> can be extended indefinitely until one as large as the physical 
universe is 
> reached -- that still has 7 primary "chakra" points defining its 
analogous 
> spherical shape. Thus the universe can have a near infinite 
multiplicity of 
> analogous 7 fold entities between the zero-point and its maximum 
spherical 
> extension in metric space. 
> 
> Should one be capable of conjointly using the dual mental powers, 
and has 
> found the "Master within," its a relatively simple matter to 
visualize the 
> connections between the primary seven fold divisions and all the 
other 
> decimal and duodecimal divisions chosen by the different schools of 
mystical 
> and magical teachings. 
> 
> Consequently, it might be added, the historical view of trying to 
understand 
> mystical teachings by literally interpreting the words, names or 
descriptions 
> used to explain the metaphysical powers, fields, planes, divisions, 
field 
> effects, etc., by various teachers or schools, is fraught with 
danger... In 
> that it confuses the mind, and causes one to either accept the most 
> comfortable interpretation that fits in with ones own prejudices, 
> preconceptions, and prior conditionings -- or totally deny the 
possibility 
> that such transcendental field divisions exist at all. 
> 
> As HPB teaches, the entire system of metaphysical thought can be 
considered 
> and understood from a logical, scientific basis -- whose 
prerequisite is an 
> entirely open, unconditioned, and equally balanced intuitive and 
rational 
> mind, as well as a thorough understanding and correlation of the 
three 
> fundamental principles or propositions -- which should come long 
before a 
> comparative study of the different religious and mystery schools' 
limited 
> concepts of metaphysical truths (that are beyond the capabilities 
of ordinary 
> linear, or left brain linguistic thinking to interpret or 
understand 
> esoterically). It's a fact that the Universe involves and evolves 
from the 
> zero-point through nonlinear processes... And, therefore, with 
linear 
> thinking, it is impossible to see the reality of its inner nature --
other 
> than the shadows it projects on the wall of (it's third level down) 
> phenomenal matter and metric space.
> 
> LHM