What are the 'laws' governing the relationships between Divine/Human/Nature? They are mentioned in the FAQ here as part of the definition of a Theosophist, but I would like to see your vision for 'How Things Work".

To me calling something a LAW means that if you do X then Y will occur, every time. Something like the old saying "Gravity, not just a good idea, it's the Law."

So, what Laws are there for behavior, relationships, productive methods of inquiry, more?

Views: 226

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Good question Bill.

One of the most common difficulties encountered by us is to try to fit everything within the narrow linear cause and consequence based relationships. Our minds are conditioned that way. It works to a certain extent as long as we are investigating nature alone.

However when investigating divine, it may appear that the final outcome is the actualization of one potential amongst countless others. Which may imply that for a given input X may not only produce Y but countless other outcomes as well, including its opposite. It also implies that for the same given input X while you may get the result as Y, I may get Z.

It seems to me that not only a new mathematical logic is required to comprehend it fully but some upgrade to the hardware in our brain is required too.

The concept of a law, as you describe, is outdated. You are using a concept of physical law, i.e. a causality, as used in the victorian age. For the last 100 years or or more, science has discovered that the concept of causality is very different. Indeed, causality, time, space etc. have been overhauled. Actually, sometimes things happen and one finds that there is no cause. (e.g. The Freewill Theorem and). 

Dear John,

     I am interested in one thing , in fact I have been fascinated by many things happening in this world , not the things seen but also the unseen , What I would like to be informed of is necessary to dispel some notions which I have within me - viz. who gave the authority to redefine Time space and Causality , and when was this great watershed mark reached , in human history . Why have I been in the dark about this as a citizen and a human being living in this world ?.  Do I have to be privy to the western scientific establishment to be privy to such great discoveries in science and really great assumptions like there are no causes for some phenomena ? Which I would like to inform you is not strictly Causality . Causality is one thing Causation another . Since when has philosophy been replaced by Science which is the are to enquiring into Effects . 

Weakness of Intellect wherever it maybe is deplorable - and this is precisely what I have been trying to put across, Dogmatism under the guise of science is no replacement for sanity . 

Science is still struggling with the vanishing point of objects , and whether the egg or the chicken came first , which they cannot do without making a preliminary hypothesis as Science is concerned with Effects and effects alone or else it would not be science . There are other things which deal with Causes alone .

There is an Ethics and it is one , there are no different Ethics for the superman called Scientist nor for the Ordinary man on the street . There is no Ethics for science separate from the ethics of the intellect .That a few crazy nut heads having no work and would like to fill out the remainder of their days abusing the worlds intellect is not reason enough to wipe the slate clean . I am not talking of God as a cause which is just a deep rooted belief in the hearts and minds of many people , which may be the opinion of one man in many or many in many and so unreliable . I am talking of the realm of absolute certainities which is not accessible to science in the realm of causes , but is accessible to any person who wishes to investigate properly .

Tell me of one thing that happens in the world without a cause and within the bounds of reason I will explain it to you . But It should be in such a way that it preempts my resorting to making any metaphysical assumptions , the privilege of making any Scientific assumptions unreservedly is extended to you even beyond reason . It is unnatural human behaviour when people can make some kind of fancy hypothesis and then try to prove or outdate factual things so obvious even to a blind man . Physical law is not a concept , it is the way matter acts on matter , nothing more  it is action and action requires motive and will .

There is something intrinsically wrong somewhere  which shows a debility in reasoning and judgement when Philosophy proper is termed Idealism , and then alternatives are brought out by concepts which do not fulfil the necessary basics but are slanted in an anthropological manner or a historical manner which includes faulty thinking , when Nietzche is feted as one of the greatest philosophers one time and later as an eminent Psychologist albeit with no structured "learning or credentials" in the subject and consigned to the dust heap of history , much like Plato or Aristotle - who are labelled as one Platonic and the other a Man no better than a  a Person who defined some Platonic ideas scientifically ,when Newton discovered gravity and the laws of motion ,

When einstein who propounded relativity has been partially discredited by the simple fact of twisting boundaries and assuming the unassumable . It is like the simplistic reasoning of children at play - nations are assumed to be more mature . People are expected to be more mature and keen in intellect and reasoning and judgement .

Things are simple - The world is not a big garage where things are taken up by a bunch of people admiring each other and "overhauling" enlivened concepts , and then acting very sagacious about the more inferior spin off concepts . Science discovers nothing , it is Scientists who are credited with "discoveries" , and scientists are just human beings prone to huge errors inherited within the intellect just like ordinary people . 

There is nothing sacrosanct in modern science that a good philosopher cannot prove wrong. There is no ethics in science then how can there be Philosophy ?. A philosophy of Science would occupy the lower than the lowest rung in Philosophy itself .

Whether bound or unbound Time and space display the same characteristics , what makes it so different in the hands of a SCientist and the people who Approve of such pulling and pushing of the true concepts ? which in itself has its entry level at a much higher stage than that of science . The indiscrimate profusion of morphed theories will only kill the world and the whole of mankind , it results in lower standards for reason and judgement and consequently ethics in mankind. 

The question I believe was 

"So, what Laws are there for behavior, relationships, productive methods of inquiry, more?"

   Doing X will never result in Y always if the human being is considered and , neither will it be if Science alone b unless the action of  "matter on matter ' both being non conscious and bereft of clinical conditions are considered which is not a very feasible thing at present as man is an integral part of reasoning and judgement - so it is both the same thing and no Laws exist like Gravity which does not apply to birds and other physical matter and phenomena like evaporation, or the wind  etc . A law proper is universal and across the board and applicable at all times even within phenomena itself . 

"So, what Laws are there for behavior, relationships, productive methods of inquiry, more?"

  This is for each person to find out on his own , including scientists.

  

   

addressing:

"What I would like to be informed of is necessary to dispel some notions which I have within me - viz. who gave the authority to redefine Time space and Causality , and when was this great watershed mark reached , in human history . Why have I been in the dark about this as a citizen and a human being living in this world ?"
---   ---   ---   ---


"Why have I been in the dark about this as a citizen and a human being living in this world ?"
no idea. Maybe you should look at (read) "The Tao of Physics" (by Fritjof Capra) or "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" (by Gary Zukav). They are rather old books. ~1970's. Note: both of these authors were part of "The Fundamental Fysics Group" at Berkely, CA.

"who gave the authority to redefine Time space and Causality"
Nature.
There was no choice in the matter. Physics had to rewrite the way Nature works because the theories were wrong. It had to be superceded with better theories and to realign physics with Nature.

Space, Time, and causality were not correct. The billiard-ball causality was wrong. "Simultaneous events", i.e. "Now", were not "simultaneous events" etc.

Also you should take a look at the The EPR paradox. It was an argument that showed that Quantum mechanics violated the laws of causality. Quantum Mechanics won that debate. Causality is not a cause-> effect relationship. It is better to view it as correlated pieces of Information. Which is "first", which is "second" is not always very clear, and highly counter-intuitive.

I am unsure how you deal with freewill? matter is moved about and causes are rather a void.

Another point I should mention is that the Theories of Physics predict what people think of as Laws. Conservation of Energy, Momentum, Angular Momentum etc. If they do not predict these -- then they are wrong.

Note added after original post: It may be better to say that they are totally in agreement with the laws. rather a subtle fifference. not worth an argument :)

Dear John ,

   I have read Fritjof Capra and Gary Zukov and other writers of eminence including the very same books that you have mentioned - I do respect your standards for authority ,since these things vary  more or less on  the benchmarks that is acceptable at a given time to each person . Yes I am also aware of the EPR paradox .

Hi - good. then I do not see your problem. It looks like we may be arguing an interpretation. ? You have me confused !!   <g>

As Joe suggests...

"They are not given out as some kind of law or set teaching requiring a method.  To interpret as such is to miss the point"

There are "laws" that govern the way "energy" acts and interacts, laws such as the Law of Action-Reaction (related to karma), or the Law of Limitation. They govern consciousness just as they do 7th plane and 7th sub-plane matter. I do not believe there are mundane laws that relate specifically to behaviour, relationships etc., these would be byproducts of laws of the type I mentioned. Right and wrong are merely labels we attach and assign value to. The Cosmos doesn't care about behaviour, it is exploring possibilities. Simply put we act, there is a reaction to it. I believe Buddha had it correct in how he looked at volition as key... volition is choice and choices have consequences. What people refer to as good and bad karma are still karma, which is the result of volition. It is volition that keeps us bound to the wheel of incarnation.

As for productive means of inquiry, I would suggest all that really matters is one be objective, not superficial in their observations nor erroneous in their reasoning. imho


I should probably point out that cause and effect, laws etc., is a strange way to put it. One should think in terms of relationships and correlations.

Laws are derived from Theory these days...

When I was younger I though in terms of "cause and effect", but this is not quite "granular" enough. Action-reaction is much more appropriate. 

RSS

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2019   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service