Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00421)

>Eldon and Daniel,
>
>May I join your discussion?

I don't think that anyone owns a discussion on 'theos-l'. Anything posted
is fair game for comments by others. If it weren't for this, any two
people could have a "private" conversation where they preach to the rest
of us, without us being allowed to say a word in reply!

>>>>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?

Being funny? We need a smiley face here. There are a few typo's that I
always seem to make. When writing with limited time using the 'eudora'
email program, I don't have the advantage of a spell or grammer checker.

>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.

We have to rely on that information that society provides us. We also
have advantage of additional insights from the theosophical literature
and what we can gain on our own, due to a ripening spiritual practice.

>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." ...

You seem to be talking now about how we can take a particular idea,
and use it to explain everything else. Since everything is interrelated,
it is possible to do this to a certain extent. The approach can be
carried too far. Freud, for instance, tried to use sex to explain too
much of psychology.

>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."

It's good that it mentiones something sounding like "karma".

>>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.

Yes, symbols are not the things themselves. Known attributes about an
object are abstractions, and not literal realities. Even concepts such
as that of a "God" are symbols and not literal realities.

>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."

We need both abstract concepts and metaphor or imagery to understand deeper
things. The original language of the Mysteries was likely one of glyph
and symbol, of visual images, rather than of abstract concepts, which came
later. With the two combined, we have deeper insights.

>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?

It would likely take a key to unlock the meaning of "the turning of the
key seven times" as well! That phrase may have several different, not
immediately apparent meanings.

-- Eldon