Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00411)

Eldon and Daniel,

May I join your discussion?

>>>>Is there any room for objective reality in Theosophy?
>
>>>I'd say yes, but perhaps not in the since that you'd think. One form of
>>>"objective" means accepting what is commonly thought to be true in popular
>>>thought, where any deviation from the norm is considered untrue.

Eldon, this is the second time you spelled "sense" as "since." Are you out
of your senses?

>>This is not true objective reality.
>
>True. We shouldn't accept something simply because it is popularly
>held, nor currently in vogue in the scientific community.

I'm quoting from a book called KABBALAH FOR THE LAYMAN by Dr. Philip S.
Berg. He states that within the context of "objective reality" that
"Kabbalistic scholars have resorted to figurative terminology in their study
of the profound mysteries of Kabbalah, using as referrences the material
objects, ideas and functions of our ordinary world. Take for instance, sex.
Our scientific information regarding sex may change. Right now we have
certain information which describes the process, but probably not as fully
as one day it will. When we discuss sex, most everyone has a concept that
is satisfactory to use in discussing sex. This is "popular thought" and it
is possible to make points regarding life by illustrating life with sex.
>
>>>Another form of "objective" may deal with external physical things. Something
>>>is considered objective if anyone can observe it and it always appears the
>>>same. It is objective if one's personal views cannot change its outcome.

>>Steven Hawking said something to the effect "That laws of relativity
>>remain constant and that belief that those laws change at the quantum
>>level is unverifiable and that belief in that premise is unfounded".
>
>>Again...biased interpretation does not make objective reality change.

We can speak about the underlying, meaningful act of sex and ponder the
biases which discussion introduces. This could change our view of life.

>You have to first believe that there is such a thing as "objective reality",
>something that exists on its own, independent of the existence and
>perception of any being. I'd say that there's no such thing.

We don't have all of the facts regarding what sex is, however it is
satisfactory to use it as an example in describing part of life. There are
two sides to the Sephirothal tree. The left side is symbolic of the "Desire
to Receive," according to the book. The right side is symbolic of the
"Desire to Impart." The book describes something called the "Bread of
Shame." The bread of shame is a phenomena whereby a poor, starving man is
given the choice as there is an abundance of light from God which would more
than satisfy his desire to receive, but he refuses. Why? Because he
determines himself to be inadequate to receive such blessings. At this
point, his desire is not diminished at all. The light then departs only to
return in a more limited measure. Now man has the ability to overcome the
"Bread of Shame." Because the light available to him now is unable to
satisfy his insatiable desire for the limitless Goodness of the Ain Soph, he
is able to recognize his own desire to receive light by the exertions that
result to satisfy his desire. As "desire to receive" is unchanging, so the
objective world is unchanging. The paradox arises when we read "I am the
Lord, I do not change." In this case the two sides are unified in one.

>>Have you ever heard of the Argument of Cause, the Argument of Change,
>>and the Law of Causality? These simple premises refute such claims.

My book says, (p.114) There is no wisdom or science to be found whose
objects and functions are so closely integrated as in the law of cause and
effect, which is the infinite progression of the esoteric knowledge of the
Kabbalah."

>>Are we related?
>
>We're related in the sense that all living things are. One way of describing
>it is that whenever you interact with another living being, you create karma,
>a bond, that represents a living connection
>
>>> Is Theosophy objective?
>
>>That limit is declared. As a man I am limited. But the Objective is
>>unchangeable.

There may be more to this than meets the eye. For instance, (from the
book) "when we refer to prayers and mitzvot as 'cables', we are using the
image to emphasize the drawing aspect, or their function as paths through
which certain sorts of energy can be channelled, just as electricity can be
transmitted through a cable. We are not however referring to the physical
characteristics of a cable, such as its dimensions, shape or colour, and
anyone who does not realize this is likely to mistake our original
intention. It is the same with the use of images and symbols in the
Kabbalah, where one specific attribute of a physical entity may be referred
to by using the image of the whole entity. If we are aware of the precise
usage we can learn from the symbol, but if we select the wrong attribute, or
impute superfluous attributes, we will be misled. It should be borne in mind
at all times that all the words of the Kabbalah are but images and symbols,
since words alone cannot express the inexpressible mystery of the Creation.

In the Kabbalah, the lower realm is patterned after the upper, preceding
realm and as it is written in the Zohar, "Nor does the smalled blade of
grass on the earth fail to have its specially appointed star in the
heavens." and "Thus, through the principles of corresponding natures we
can observe the unknown areas of the upper realm by examining the
interactions of that which is below. With the knowledge of the Kabbalah, we
can trace the origin and development of those cosmic forces and principles
which ultimately influence the behavioral patterns of man, and shape the
course of mundane history.
 The source of all reality takes place in the upper, undetected
sphere, the root descending and evolving through the process of cause and
effect (or imparting and receiving) in an intelligible order down to the
level of our existence."

Also, Eldon, "It is a firm principle in Kabbalistic thought that light is
motionless. Therefore the speed of movement can only relate to the vessel,
how the vehicle which reveals to us the energy, (light bulb or lightning)
can be measured. The internal energy is immeasurable and timeless."

Light, grass, and sex are objective realities, and the wisdom tradition
teaches using these objects. "This intricate and at times confusing maze of
symbolism is the very key to its understanding. This paradox can be
understood if we consider the use of imagery in other forms of writing and
common usage, where we often use on concept to illuminate another."

I've got to make this last comment really fast, because the baby's crying,
but I was wondering if anyone has the quote at their fingertips regarding
the "turning of the keys seven times." If we take the keys in the Voice of
the Silence, couldn't we turn them by rearranging their progression. As
Dana is first, the next time it is last, then sixth, fifth, fourth, third,
and then second?