[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: What are Universal Standard for the Sciences and Philosophies ?

Apr 20, 1999 12:48 PM
by katinka hesselink

Dear Dallas,

You write:
>> Like any of the "factual" physical sciences:  Mathematics,
Chemistry, Physics, Engineering, there are certain basics that
 all accept and use as a universal method for communicating.>>
Yes, but those tools are also in movement: they are changed 
when the neccessity arises. 
>> Mathematics is the tool that expresses most observations and
relationships as laws in Nature, when certain conditions are used
as an acceptable and universal, basic point of departure.>>

I wonder if you studied mathematics or the history of it. 
Certain conditions usually started out as being accepted as 
universal, but then later on it was found out that they 
were not so universal. I think here of for instance the 
history of chaostheory, but even the history of algebra is 
an example of this. Foundations in science are questioned 
as soon as they are found to be lacking. 

>> If it can be granted that Theosophy, as the ANTIQUE SCIENCE, and
 the PERENNIAL PHILOSOPHY is such a synthesizing basis, then the
 FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITIONS that is advances cease to be matters of
 adjustment and tinkering, and become axioms that can be used
 universally to study the psychology of SCIENCE, as it relates
 through the various departments of observation, to actual usage.>>

But each individual has to check the most essential of these propositions for 
themselves. In fact, it is only meaningfull to talk about the unity of everything if one 
KNOWS this unity, instead of just having mentally accepted it.  

>> I say this as clearly as I can, since much time is spent in
 comparing current ideas that are under development with the main
 theosophical Principles which have been established by untold
 centuries and millennia of observation, experiment and usage in
 the college of Adepts, and their Disciples.  I am aware that this
 represents something that our academies do not recognize, since
 they are not aware of its existence, and also, they are assisting
 it in their own series of observations and the resulting Laws of
 Nature that they are constantly refining and defining -- if we
 take the whole of nature into account.>>

This may be true, but for people of this age to understand 
theosophy it certainly helps the mind to see what 
correspondences there are with the current sciences. 

Yerry writes:
>> Jung only included material that he observed in his work and
 left most other stuff as speculation. However, his archetypes
 would certainly equate with atma. >>

Would they? Archetypes are forms aren't they? Atma is a ray 
of the formless, as I understand it. This means that 
archetypes may be found in Mahat probably or perhaps in 
Buddhi, mut atma... I would not think so. But I am 
interested to hear Jerry's idea's on this. 

>> Atma-buddhi is our spiritual monad or "ray" from the divine
 monad. It contains imagination when this is defined as
 our ability to produce images (and sounds). It also contains
 the intuition or ability to become consciously aware of
 things that physically would be impossible (noetic). But
 our consciousness normally works through manas, and
 here our buddhic images become cluttered with thoughts.
 When we raise consciousness from manas
 (mental plane) to buddhi (causal plane) we can directly
 experience images without thoughts (which are but images
 clothed in words or language). When chelas begin to
 meditate, such as Patanjali teaches, they begin from
 manas, which is to say from where they already are.
 They begin with imagination focused in manas, or images
 clothed in words and languages. The goal is to
 gradually eliminate the clothing and observe images
 and/or sounds directly (thus raising consciousness
 from manas to buddhi). We do
 have imagination in manas, but its source, our ability
 to form images and sounds, is in atma-buddhi and
 when imagination is in manas, it is always associated
 with thoughts, words, language, etc. This has the
 advantage of being more detailed, but the disadvantage
 of being muddled or sullied by our personality.>>

This is the first I've heard of buddhi being an active 
principle. I thought it was passive. It has been said that 
the Mahatma's prime teacher is his/her Atma, which is 
all-knowing, but I've always understood this to mean that 
through atman we gain access as it were with everything 
else. Atma in itself is in my point of view the light by 
which we see. It is not the things we see. By things I mean also idea's and 
images, like the ones you talk about. But this is an 
interesting subject and very difficult, so I am interested 
to know what people have to say.

NHL Leeuwarden

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application