In our understanding of the world we stumble across a strange thing related to the Self which perplexes us to no small degree and it is the insistence on evidences or result of evidences called "proofs" before a thing is "accepted " as a fact to our limited knowledge .

If one carefully examines this phenomenal attitude of human beings we find that it stands in the way of the human being actualizing the purportedly element of the divine through transcendence by the faculty of observation , inference and validation by experience.On the other hand there is yet another phenomenal attitude peculiar to human beings which is at the other spectrum of this and is based on the utmost reverence to belief which disregards a scientific approach to the thing on hand and becomes entirely personal and endemic.

And in between the two ends of this spectrum we have a whole lot of Scientific, Psedo Scientific and half baked notions which more or less exhibit characteristics in less or more of the two ends of the spectrum of the "need to evidences" which has given us Dogmatism relating to Religion,Science,Art, Philosophy,Psychology,Physical Sciences and Materialism,Idealism ,Realism ,Synthetic theories ,Dialogues (which are part of an Idealism) ,Endowing newer concepts by the mixing up of the character of either of one or more of the above concepts and calling it new , an alchemy of science and metaphysics under various assumptions which 'Stretch" the barriers of reasoning and intuition originally involved in either , calling upon that most fickle of faculties viz Imagination to find the correspondences and contradictions etc.It is necessary to understand this predicament in order to alleviate the mischief it has caused in the intellect .

Both Science and Philosophy presuppose a minimum development of the intellect before they can be formally entered into by anyone . The scientist from the intuitive truths which require no validation and are applicable across the spectrum to which it pertains and are called First principles or Axioms  these are not required to be deduced by anyone , the originators had the necessary insight like Euclid, Pythagoras and many others , This is how the Axioms were developed and so the unassailability of the Queenly science of Mathematics which stands at the apex of all sciences and finds applications across the spectrum of the concept called Science . No other Science holds this advantage of transcendency that Mathematics holds and its sister Geometry the science of forms and position in space which rests on the bedrock of Mathematics.

Philosophy in a like manner ,has its first Principles and Axioms , and which are open to investigation by any person who is aware of the Nature of philosophy, what its primary aims are , what are the grounds it covers , its applicability or non applicability in areas, its tools or instruments of investigation , the objects that are investigated and to what end , and the base of knowledge required for a foray into such a sublime area , so far removed from the vulgarity of the common intellect and its perverted notions of life and thinking, As with the the originator of every science which is few and far between , there has to be an understanding in the matter of Philosophy also - it is only a very rare and acute person who can claim to be the originator of an original science or philosophy . These are the lighthouses of mankind pointing the way in a creative and evolutionary manner. The qualities embodied in their intellect are  the rarest of the  rare and so they are not everyday occurance, they further the cause of mankind beneficially and in no small measure .If "man is the measure" then they would occupy any pantheon in any country with ease .

We are not required in any way to to formulate , or discover but to just understand , and understand rightly without a shadow of a doubt , for it is an insult to intelligence if a person could not be able to understand what another has propounded with certainity and stood the test of time , We are not asked to embark on inventions but to understand .For in the correct understanding and assimilation one reaches a stage where in depth analysis can be done to ones own good , keeping in mind that he owes it to the originator for the particular advancement he finds himself in personally . To attack or controvert is to cut off the branch by which one hangs upon . It is an open clarion call of our ignorance and a stating of this fact when we slowly impersonate the originator and spin off theories and yet obfuscate it so much as to present it as our own and "new''. This is intellectual dishonesty brought about by an error in understanding of the ethos as to what exactly or how understanding is engendered. 

The above discursive  though lengthy is a necessary precursor to understanding the dillemma of the requirement by the individual to elicit a proof or the attachment of an evidence to a statement heard or said or known  indirect.

Leaving aside the question of all Sciences , we now tackle the subject of Philosophy and its grounds of existence , which is a necessary and essential understanding failing which all forays into the subject will be doomed to failure.

Incomprehension is at the root of all ability to assimilate knowledge rightly - In philosophy it is the inability to "conceptualize" and understand correctly . Philosophy tries to get to the root of the  "why" of a thing unlike science which is the  "how" of a thing . Science explains how a certain axiom embraces within it the sum total of the operations within its group . In Philosophy we work from causes and not from effects . In science there has to be an "observed phenomenon" requiring investigation or explanation . Bad language and even worse intellect is to be blamed for if a person has ever believed that he was being told of the "Why" and not the "How" when listening or learning Science or dealing Scientifically . Science deals in what is already observable and available to investigation , collation , assimilation and categorization as a clear cut body of knowledge . It does not go into "why" a phenomena is , its being  and non being . It deals in what has "become" and is available to us for scrutiny .

The crucial and very critical things that are to be understood , before one gets into philosophy (or Theosophy I use the extended meanings for both without dissonance ) are the points of references involved at its very basic level and they are the following :

1.Subject -  Object Orientation

2.Law of Causation  

3.Principles of Thought

4.Area Covered by the above .          and finally 

5 The.Exegesis or a "cutting away" (unlike in Religion or other subjects ).

Subject - Object Orientation 

           One does not deny the existence of objects , and that they stand in time and space .But what has to be understood is that an object presupposes the subject . ie. The existence of an object is based on the availability of a  subject who is conscious .This has to be the right understanding in the seeing of any object . Again since the subject is presupposed in the appearance of an object , it stands to reason that the subject does not occupy the same area as the object in that we mean the subject "stands outside the purview or ambit of the object" . In other words the subject being preexisting to the object cannot come under the scrutiny or does not afford any scope for scrutiny to the object in order to be known .

The corollary to this statement is : every  conscious subject comes under the class of objects as he is an object to another subject , and as between such conscious subjects they are all objects - since objects stand in time and space and are temporal , within a conscious object , those that are seen (I mean objects) exist and those that are not seen are non existent (for the particular individual) . this is applicable as for the lowest so for the highest and throughout .

So there is -  since the world itself taken fully and its constituents stand in time and space and are objects which are subject to time and space preexisting as a necessary and essential condition of the appearance of forms . Out of which the conscious object will be having a conscious subject which is preexisting it . Since the appearance of objects in time and space presuppose the existence of a subject . 

Now as between the conscious subject who is also an object vis a vis another object that is also a subject , there is the possibility that even if they stood in the condition of just Subject and Object , there is the (possible) event that the subject can be made an object of knowledge which in normal cases would be impossible as per the above discussion , but how and why is explained .

Vis a Vis inanimate phenomena and a conscious observer the subject is outside the purview of the object and is preexisting to it .

Vis a Vis animate objects and Subject - the subject is preexisting to the object and cannot be known as it is outside the preview of the object (though) animated or conscious.

  Now the inference as between two animate objects which are both objects and subjects to each other - It is well known that not just the possibilty of knowing exists but interaction also exists , depending on their  position at a given time in space . Which gives us a tremendous insight into another thing which follows and is the Start of Philosophy .

Conclusion :

 A subject exists which is conscious and pre existing every other object in existence.

This subject is outside the concepts  (or  temporal reality) of Time and Space.

This subject does not occupy any position as it is not subject to time (this requires some elucidation which will be done ).

This subject does not move in any direction as it is beyond the truncation of space by forms .(this too requires some clarification ).

The subject cannot be known as it stands outside the ambit of objects (or is not conditioned by it ) .

This same subject can be known since there exist a case of conscious objects interacting between each other and at  a particular position (ie,earth) alternating between subject and object in rapid succession (succession is time ). 

So there exists a precondition to knowing the preexisting formless and conscious subject as an object in the rare event that the subject takes the form of an object and is animate (ie a human being).

Again this subject is capable of inhabiting all objects by reasoning (both animate and inanimate ). 

This subject can further be known only on reflection and never other wise , ie a conscious attempt to "know" it has to be made failing which it will never be known.

And finally 

    The manifold existence of millions of objects of various sizes and shapes and capabilities side by side with their various domains of perception , knowledge , movement and utility to another (if immovable like stone etc ) point to the happy ability of the coexistence of subject and object between themselves in all its possible permutations and combinations , so coexistence is also a precondition of becoming an object .

The above is not exhaustive but is only a small pointer to how one has to orient oneself when one decides to approach this subject of inquiry . Causes are ascertained in Philosophy and then worked down . Or in the corollary transcendence is achieved by employing various techniques which lead to knowledge . 

(to be cont'd).



Views: 101


You need to be a member of Theosophy.Net to add comments!

Join Theosophy.Net

Comment by Hari Menon on June 14, 2013 at 3:30am


   An illustration in keeping with the line of thought on the previous posts will serve to comprehend these easily 

1. Object and Subject - this easily understood by everyone - Phyisically it just means that much 

2. Object - Subject - It means Internally Object = and end to something which a person works toward , Subject = Pertaining to a particular item or topic of knowledge 

 Eg - say  A man goes to college in order to acquire a degree 

     Here the object = Acquiring a degree , and the Subject = Education or furtherance of his prospects in life whatever may be his reason for doing it according to him .

Now it can be said that this example hazy - very true - since One end in sight will have many smaller objects and subjects within it . 

A man may go to college just to acquire a degree , so here the subject and object or the ends and means shift .

If his end is to loosely be defined as " in order that he may secure a good life in future" - this is very untenable as he does not know what the future hold out to him . there is no particular end in sight and it will be very fluid

at times he will tell his parents "to acquire a degree" at times to his girl friend "to enable him to marry her"  and so on , but the ends keep changing whereas his means is presently only one (in his idea that is ).

This person is not aware of right thinking , is it focus ? not necessarily , now is it will ? never , is it anything else ? we cannot but look deeper into this .

The end which he defines for himself must be such that it does not allow for any multiplicity , and to attain this end he obviously knows that there exist many subidiary ends within this larger ends , and also understand that these smaller ends are just a means to the one end he has as his goal and so should not lose sight of this .

It may sound like some management theory or one of corporate profits but is not so.

Say man foresees a life with a wife and children and a house of his own with comforts , obviously he works with this larger idea in mind - but what actually transpires in life is - He has money but no wife , he gets a wife but no money , he has a house and wife but no money , he has money and wife but no house (improbable but could happen ) .  

He has a degree and yet the good life has turned into one big lemon for him . why does it happen is the query- the answer is that he is not aware of the principles of conduct and living in the matter he occupies and so is not aware of the principles of thought .

Firstly he is not aware of himself fully as having the ability to reason , judge , assimilate, understand and then project the concept correctly into action whereby everything works in a smooth manner to the desired end or ends (which are subsidiary ).

Just as well as he knows his body , he should have an idea into his mind and how it works vs, how it is working presently and also his intellect how it works vs, how it should work actually . It can be learnt from experience alone which is a longer path , and involves many lives , or it can be learnt from knowledge and involve the one single present life that is all the person has an option which he cannot escape now or forever .It is a decision that one has to take in the immediate now rather than in the future , it is a distinct lack of culture within him that makes him withdraw from this most fundamental part of being a human being in fera that it may be religion or it may detract from his duties - never and never - he is placed in such circumstances which are already there which will allow for this great planning of his and which will support every small end of his on the road , to think other wise is to be a coward , lower than the earth worm , and to be choose nothingness over being and what is always real both phenomenal and absolute . 

It is not religion or getting the call or even natures call , or being exposed to the elements and the supernatural and ending up a wreck or even embracing a life of penury and hopelessness and want and a show of it , or to most of all declaim ones duties and sally forth to a golden glory in the sun - never right thinking alone shows the way and right thinking is the understanding of the First Principles of thought which as human beings we are heir to and have to know as a necessary and essential condition of our existence which we have wrested with great and immense will from being itself  it is as impossible as to become a human being from pure being or existence , it is easier to return to it more easier than to have separated from it , impossible as it may appear but still possible and depending on each one of us . The Upanishads say  .....".......It is making the impossible possible .....". This is the seriousness and approach that a person must have when approaching the basic tenets of  thought which is so much a person and more than his body which he knows so well. Nothing can be given as taken and forever , then nothing is the result alone . 

(to be cont'd)

Comment by Hari Menon on June 13, 2013 at 9:18am


 We can now with a modicum of decency tackle the problem of Law of Causation , which is known by many names in various philosophies of the world - Karma ,Metempsychosis,Rebirth,Reincarnation etc.

        I have only made a broad statement and not gone into the nitty gritties of the above each words and their meanings as per the lexicon , perhaps with the exception of Karma with which I am more familiar .

It is seen that Cause and effect are not a consequence of perception but rather a precondition to it , so our perception and experiencing depends on the inherent cause and effect already present in knowledge . Because the seeing of an object is not the same as that of feeling it as an idea within , these are two different things , sight belongs to the eye and it ends there , and the object has fully satisfied its purpose at that level - what we make of the impression is altogether another matter , here we have to note that statements like colouring of perspective is incorrect and coveys a wrong idea . For in such things exactitude is lost . The object is an effect only , and the feeling or Idea is neither the object but rather and idea which is not the same as the object , neither is it an effect of which the cause is the object , never -  the feeling or idea within us is a consequences of the knowledge of seeing or sight . The idea is sight , which is the closest to the experiencing individual and not the object - there is no object that can affect us so significantly , it is sight that affects us and to be known as such . For a blind man says "I am blind" meaning he has no sight . Which lead us to understand that because of the the "prior existence " in our understanding perception includes this aggrandizement of the properties of the eye . And so on for every sense organ . Now this idea of the object in front has no relation to its real nature , but rather as a something which is an effect and come from somewhere and occupying space . Conceptualization and abstraction leads to knowledge and everything of trees (if the effect/object was a tree ).

Sound and name makes it more tangible . Now this is all done internally and for the sake of oneself or the empirical ego . As we analyze closely we find a strange behaviour in this ourself , we tend to identify the eyes , nose , ears etc and the "action" contained in them as ours .And in the process accept into knowledge  the names and forms as perceived as the same as identical with those of the objects within the scope of our senses.There also is  avery strange perversion happening here , within our consciousness over a time the world acquires a certain "life" and "character" whereas by the first analysis it is colourless ie.objective knowledge alone .within the shortest time of perception . This we take as actual and pertaining to all objects seen and so "impart" life and vibrancy to everything . Because we prefer to orient ourselves as an object and then behave as a knowing subject . One can only be one of them and never as they involve such a shift in perception that we may say it is almost like a tectonic shift in knowledge . So the effect proper is the "building" of a causal body with impressions and experiences in consciousness , which otherwise would have not been there if the body idea were not there . The body thus is also an object of knowledge to us and so an idea or a feeling only .

So in essence we have aggrandized the duties of another , which is their own by nature and made it ours , and so we experience pain and pleasure as if it were so - which hardens our nature which is the attributing of pain and pleasure and experiences to ourselves and due to and emanating from objects of knowledge . 

This is the fund of impressions which will condition our life the next time around and which will determine the quality of the intellect that we will acquire and in consequence the knowledge that will be available to us . If we look carefully the knowledge already or level of our knowledge easily shows the quality of impressions and hence life led previously without having to dig deep .My beliefs now are not a consequence of the impressions in this life , rather it is the result of my previous way of thinking and living (there is more to this but just briefly ) - the world despite all its "changes" is always colourless (by which I mean impersonal and objective - as between object - object relationships ). So the Cause is oneself and the effect is oneself and so there does not appear any problem as to whether a man should take unconditional acceptance of his own actions or not and be torn between faith and knowledge and superstition , the prior knowledge of the working of  Cause and effect - in effect wipes away any such thought and one is without a shadow of a doubt as to what one is to believe . That subject is incapable of action - it not being matter but the very opposite of the idea of matter though it inhabits it through and through like space and knowledge . The pope I hear was asked to pray for forgiveness for 2000 years of opression by the church  to the whole world which he did so with such a naiivette of the intellect and reasoning that is so touching , as also the Japanese who were asked to ask for the forgiveness for  Aggression in China - it too reached a half way compromise I believe . So this is how the world arises within us . 

Now matter acts on matter only and so action is there , the action of "knowing" - (meaning of the word "knowledge" is  "to know" ). happens when we "receive " Ideas and when we "execute" them . 

But we find here that this action of knowing is faulty , since our nature in this life (which is actually a fall out of the experiences of the previous one ) colours our knowing and hence the knowledge .

So the root of the problem is that between lives there is a lag in knowledge , a man experiences and suffers a lot in one life or in any other manner possible  - now he has a  ":fund of knowledge " which is his own creation with the resolve that he will not do wrong (having known what is good and bad by experience ) - But this resolve when does he get to execute ?I mean in a manner as to purify himself and become virtue filled or "good " ? It is obviously in the next life , where these resolves take place on a new stage called the world which will appear to him as idea conditioned from within (ie by himself alone)  dance begins all over again , till he evolves and coexists peacefully (since he has determined he is a subject but amongst objects - which is basically the ego )

He will be reduced to an object by experiences in order to escape this chain , till he coexists with other objects . The wise man knowing this retains his subjective character and eschews the immediate object which alone is knowable , and that too as an idea within him . For if he is an idea himself there is no need to extend the anlogy further .  This is the Sum and substance of the law of causation - the knowledge of which in itself will set a man free to a large extent .  It is subtle it explains why  a man has been placed in circumstances which make him a potter of clay items . 

Not the gross and saddening conclusion of the general intellect that the potter is the cause of the pot and the clay is the material - that is science and will not explain being or becoming or existence and what we really are beyond time space and causation .  for at this stage of cause and effect the knowledge shifts domain from object to subject .


Comment by Hari Menon on June 13, 2013 at 2:41am


          If the previous two posts have been carefully perused , this one would reward the reader with a lot of insights into the nature of things  though it may be presumptuous on my part to think so . But a preamble is necessary before the Law per se is tackled failing which everything fails. For this a keener understanding of Space and Time is the prerequisite from a particular angle of vision yet grounded in perfect reality and observation :

Space : it can be seen how the knowledge of space is ingrained already in human consciousness , this is because it is not an object per se .What we call knowledge is including or containing the knowledge of space within us . It is impossible to have human consciousness without the knowledge of space already within oneself - so it has to be understood that it corroborates an observed fact of life 

viz. All objects (including) oneself stands in space . The knowledge of objects will not be complete if this knowledge of space were not within our consciousness. It is a prereqisite to all other knowledges of objects . So now we here have the knowledge that the Subject(vis a vis subject and subject) Who is outside the purview of objects is known in part and already contained within our knowledge .It is partial and is called space - yet known without any effort.

Now we also know all objects stand in space , so we too stand in space as any other object , and the idea of space or knowledge of space is intrinsic and before the knowing of the object , which means that since we are moving objects  ie we retain the charactereristics of an object vis a vis a subject so we are still not devoid of space since cognition has to be in space . So space is found to be interpenetrating objects and essential and necessary for the appearance of objects , implying that knowledge is preexisting to space itself  (or at this stage )or at least coeval (or accompanying ) with space in the least . So we have a case where the conception of knowledege approximates space in its characteristics as a phenomena within the subject who is also an object (ie the human being ) . Why phenomena ? The above is only valid to a conscious individual which is an object and at times subject and cannot relate to a subject that is outside the purview of objectification.So we cannot extend the analogy to the infinite , but only use this guide post as an indication of the "Nature of the Changeless" .

Again space is indivisible and does not contain a now or then or here - this is to be understood in the context of considering space alone and only space .it is unbroken and subtle , but is capable "of holding" or displaying objects within itself . Now another thing about space is it does not suffer any dimunition or addition by anyway due to the introduction of objects . Even if we were to consider space as bounded (which it is not ) it still would follow this rule faithfully without any variation .So what again transpires is that it is through and through the same everywhere it is "perceived" or "known" and multiplicity is not its character The multiplicity belongs to forms (at this stage) to objects which we can reasonably call "objects of knowledge" ,since knowledge is preexisting or accompanying space as either pure knowledge or consciousness to an object which is conscious and can abstract or produce knowledge by choice through judgement of observations of other objects within its ambit .

Observation (In the light of the above )

   From experience it is very well known that all objects or phenomena are subject to the passage of time , ie they are capable of coming into existence and then staying for a while and going out of existence and be replaced by other similar or dissimilar phenomena (man included). This quality or "power: or latent "power" inherent in space Just as wind in air is not immediately known from an observation of space alone . But it is known through the  behaviour of Objects and their peculiar condition .

Time this is the quality of rapid succession of states of becoming , and is seen only through objects , time comes to our knowledge only when the effects of coming to , staying and passing away is discerned in any object that is apart from the subject . Now in the case of the conscious object , also the growth , movements in size and its wasting away of the body which comes to our notice is the evidence that we are just phenomena and objects , but a very significant thing arises here viz. a contradiction that we know this changes of phenomena intimately , so it indicates we are the subject and the manifestation is an object to this subject as also to that other subject to whom we are an object . 

Now we can easily see that every object is a union of time and space . It has the qualitiy of succession from time and which is not a quality of space , but also the quality of having form which can only come from space . For even in dream one need not dream of space and then fill in objects , but rather just "place" objects anywhere and still space is there to accommodate it . So now what we understand from an object or any object is as follows :

An object means that time can be conceptualized or extracted in thinking from space , bur space cannot be conceptualized . The union of time and space gives form to an object , one is succession the other is nothing but persistence of space with or without time , with or without objects . So by the introduction of an object in space (ie its form only ) we are introduced to the persistence of space or its quality to persevere despite and independant of objects - so space stands outside the purview of even time and cannot be "extracted from an object unlike time which is perceptible and extractable in consciousness and knowledge ".

Now given the above reality obtained by observation , and inference we can safely conclude that the persistence of objects is a corollory of the quality of space , and again of knowledge which accompanies or is preexisting space - so it gives a vital insight into the fact that that the preexisting knowledge in man has the strength to impart the persistence to forms or objects including himself as object and moreover this persistence is subject to a rapid succession of changes by time , for the say - light from a lamp or a sun at the same point will not be the same at succeeding periods , looked at larger examples we have water flowing in a brook or a water fall , or the waves in an ocean . But both space and knowledge do not partake in this latent power they are outside its purview and not subject to movement .

The noteworthy thing to understand it is the object and its observation that has yielded all the information , and is not conjured by sophisms or dogma or any leanings to any particular religion or path . It is totally from a right "thinking on an object" or evidence in front of everyone and requiring no further evidence .

So now to the crucial part of the the discursive - we can safely say that forms unite time and space at particular positions in space . It is thus that Geometry which is the Science of ( Forms) and Trigonometry  and forms have their entry  and both  evolved from the very basic and wholly intuitive science of Maths . But this is a digression .

Coming back to forms , we now see from observation that  objects occupy certain positions vis a vis other objects , there is a time and place for objects , and to see an object one has simply to be there , if one is not there then the object is not there (it may be there for another subject who is also an object but positioned vis a vis it in a particular space and time ). 

It has to be intuited or understood that everything is in the realm of knowledge so far , only the object is available and the earth and its constituents (objects also) .

Which brings us to another point which is germane to the whole of what went before :

Matter is object (I have introduced the word , having avoided it so far ) . the content of the form is space and time (discerned as before , but covered and not really thought of in the perception of the object pe se ). In addition there is form which gives matter its impenetrability and easily "seen"by us or "felt" by touch. 

The persistence of the form over time in change is brought about by the quality of persistence of space and knowledge - for change can only be discerned if a thing is seen within the backdrop of something that does not change . The object however is said to be classified as "matter' when it it has "content" filling it .Other wise it would be as empty as space and hollow or just plain lines . 

Content thus presupposes two things - seen and the unseen in order that knowledge may be complete . Unseen are Space and knowledge , Time in intervals , Persistence and now Impenetrability (we introduced a new concept matter  which results in the  auto generation of a quality latent or unseen in the preexisting conditions ).

So this gives us a great insight that when we devolve naturally from cause to effect - but anchoring ourselves to the perfectly intuitive and natural and most compelling knowledge and evidence viz. direct perception , it results in the extraction of a newer quality contained in the preexisting conditions and latent within it .

In the corollory of transcendence - then it is the subsuming of the qualities or attributes observed in a preceding stage with that of the subsequent stage knowing that the subsequent or higher principle is more "Subtle and Pervasive" This is the Na Iti Na Iti iti  method of negation also known as Neti neti  in contracted form . And in fact the only intelligent way of doing it unless one is already well on the path. 


  It can so be seen that all perception is intellectual so far , and not as we believe it to be , direct perception is straight forward intuition by the subject , the seen has been understood or its idea grasped immediately , it is objective for no feelings from the object emanate - lines , forms and content, colours, persistence and matter or solidity is conveyed without fail to all - This purely objective if we take a tree as an example it stands as it is just nothing more - the idea is captured by the subject and understood as feeling , if he wants to transmit this objective idea (now subjective within him ) he has to understand the feeling correctly by conceptualizing it by abstraction and then making it general and articulate it through language or pictures to another .

So this is perception and knowledge and understanding , everything exists for the sake of knowledge and  by and through understanding and understanding alone there is no other way to knowledge .

So now we can easily see that the abstraction of feeling by analysis and conceptualization makes it communicable and general - Tis is the transformation of subjective knowledge of an Idea or feeling into a concept and into Objective knowledge applicable to all by the operation of reason and knowledge and understanding which are the qualities of the subject who is also conscious and an object at the same time implying that these are the qualities of the subject who is also never an object and is beyond the purview of all known subjects including  this subject who is not a pure subject at times or constantly as that. But that does not disqualify it at all , rather its potency to enter objects and hold it is far higher than of  this subject . 

So as all perception is intellectual , and there exists a subject - object orientation (by this method or line of reasoning) what we see  is the sight of the eye and in essence we are knowing sight , or just an eye that "sees"

so too with the other organs of knowledge . But why is it not so and we feel differently ?

This is due to the the preexisting conditions of knowledge within us . I do not wish to take it further from here any perspicacious reader will be able to take it up on his own .

Preexisting conditions of knowledge which we had arrived at as above (in part) and which are not known by direct and Objective- Subjective perception is to be arrived at or at least such a state of affairs exist is to be known . Our perception is already and as a precondition of this state of having become is already conditioned and we cannot perceive or know anything apart from that and this we call knowledge .

We are forced to understand a thing through knowledge alone , through the intellect alone , as a concept which may be either manifested or thought about (abstract) even an abstraction can only be on things already known 

and understood even otherwise even in fantasizing , the limits and the grounds and ambit of each subject who is an object and the space he can occupy in time and knowledge and vis a vis other objects which co exist with him is clearly marked and clear limits are laid automatically by virtue of his intellect , he is his own witness and each of us incriminate ourselves - though man made laws prohibit the incrimination of oneself by oneself . 

On one hand we are at knowledge with space and on the other we are at knowledge with perception . 

What is this preexisting conditions for perception ? , one is that impenetrability will be seen and felt and known in an object.

Another is that persistence of the material of the form of an object will be there even in change

Another is that it Will be seen as occupying space. 

Another is that a person can only know what  his sense organs communicate .

Another most important one is the whole world and its objects are in the very instance knowable only by the senses of knowledge so they are pervasive and subtle as to the respective attributes they discern .

Everything exists for the sake of knowledge and nothing more . 

Finally the Subject is essentially knowledge alone .

all the above are necessary in order to understand the law of cause and effect  or causation as it is called by many .

(to be cont'd)


Comment by Hari Menon on June 12, 2013 at 7:06pm


        A proper understanding of this law is connected to what was written under the subject-object orientation. It would require repeated readings to get a firm grasp of both these aspects of  philosophy , and deep thinking in order to assimilate the knowledge contained therein . It is pure knowledge and hence the difficulty in understanding and the necessity for repeated readings failing which it would lie in the domain of  the obtuse.

The law itself -(again it has to be understood in close connection with the Realities of Subject - Object Orientation having been understood in the back ground of ones conscious thought when this is being read ).

Earth, water, fire, air and space are the five great elements and , of these Earth, water and Fire are known as the the "Grosser" elements in that they can be perceived by the sense organs directly and known by direct perception . The remaining two elements are  known as "Knowledge Elements" . Air is known by perception of it in many ways all of it not simultaneously , partly manifested as "touch" on our skin we become aware of it and so "feeling" is evoked , and we come to know of the existence of wind , so too when wind "beats" on our ears we hear the sound and come to know of it , and finally when something is blowing in the wind we percieve it by sight . This Seeing is all the more significant because on a calm day whilst we may not experience any breeze at our locus , we can however observe if a tree is near that the leaves at the top will be subject to breeze , as also when we see clouds move . Now again we observe that when an electric fan or an airconditioner or any such thing is used Breeze is produced . Now what we understand of This fourth element is not fully by direct perception but rather by an element of inference also viz. of its nature and that is its latent possibilities are unharnessed only on an agitation or movement being set in motion , other wise it pervades and lies untapped within the atmosphere or our immediately cognized areas .Now this inference of this higher property of Air is in

consequence and in addition to our knowledge by the other three methods viz. touch, sight and sound .So an iota of Indirect knowledge is involved  and the involvement of knowledge is subtle , since it requires that apart from direct perception - which is treated as intuitive knowledge and most complete , an element of abstraction of this knowledge is required to complete the knowledge of the element in all its generalities . It might come as a surprise to many that direct perception comes under the class of intuitive knowledge , it is so and incontrovertible , but it is empirical intuition - this is what has to be understood clearly . So from the perception that is direct at the lower stages of the elements , we move to indirect perception in the matter of Air - of course indirect perception is there in  a lesser manner in our understanding of the primary elements  (if one is prone to nit picking- but that is not the main issue here ) but in the case of Air it is more pronounced and is required to form a complete idea of the Element  due to its "Subtlety and Pervasiveness" . 


     There is a quantum leap from empirically intuitive and direct perceptional knowledge to indirect knowledge which is non perceptional but essential and necessary for the understanding or collation of knowledge from observing at this stage .


  There exists a within the apprehending subject who is empirical and conscious but temporal (ie. human being) 

The ability to extract from direct perception which is most complete in its own way ( in that it requires no other evidence than that of the senses ) knowledge and abstract it as a concept for the better understanding of the subject (I use a dual sense here in relation to Subject -Subject realtionship versus Objects - for it has to be kept in mind that there exists two subjects at the same time of which one meets the criteria of objects also , viz. position in space, subject to time ie. temporality and form - while the other stand outside the knowledge of the embodied subject who is also an object and conscious).

Now abstraction of knowledge from a set of data implies the ability on part of the subject to Conceptualize knowledge in order that it may be better understood , and this is done by collating the perception of the senses and then by judgement generalizing it to a concept of knowledge for better understanding so that this knowledge embraces the whole spectrum or area surveyed and is equally applicable throughout . 

In the above discussion - the inference that Air has a potentiality which is dormant throughout , and which when agitated results in a breeze, or a mild wind or a typhoon depending on the  intensity of the forces acting upon it makes it complete knowledge in the general - it is this which aids science in simulating conditions and harnessing wind power , not the empirical intuitive or direct experience . It is the understanding of what has been intuited and converted into knowledge by abstraction that is useful and not otherwise . It is this Conceptualization that is conducive to transmission to another and so that a group of people or an engineer anywhere can call upon that knowledge to harness the latent potency of Air . It is this that is conducive to transmission of knowledge and this alone as the intuitive and direct experience is only for the individual and rests as a feeling within him and is as yet not knowledge through relation either to the means or an end and hence remains as such and is not communicable . 

This intuitve and direct perception of that which is there as an object and reality and known through the senses is most complete and more compelling than any evidence but it is also the most objective , and rests as a feeling only within the subject and is highly subjective and not conducive to transmission or useful other than to himself . To abstract and make it a concept is to make it available to transmission but general and Objective .

This point is to be clearly understood of the "Nature of Understanding and Knowledge " since in common language and experience a man expects "his direct intuition to be that of anothers by virtue of the fact that it exists as an object of perception " this is stupidity , inversion in knowledge is required , the particular has to be inverted into the General arrived at by right thinking such that it is applicable to every one everywhere at all times and gives the primary intuitive knowledge that the first originator had , and thus transmitted without any deficiencies to others , leaving at its kernal the original experience of the embodied individual across time and sapce and ages an millennia . The representation of the this kernel of truth can only be by concepts and intense intellectual honesty with a prayer to that this intelligence which showed the way .This is the essence of Akashic Records and , it is the essence of Intellectual honesty and  right knowledge and transmission of clear knowledge .

 Space the last great element is a knowledge element plus a high degree of consciousness , since we do not have to even describe space or even intuit space or even infer it - it is known immediately on birth ,and as necessary and essential , it is a "feeling" in itself not even an indirect feeling from intuitive empirical cognition , it is always the known , even to a blind man , it is "known" with absolute certainity - just as one never thinks about the sum or whether it is day or night - It is a total consciousness within the subject or a perfect knowing  and understanding without abstraction 

Inference : So it is the most abstracted knowledge and does not even require either abstraction to convert it ino knowledge as it is knowledge only in consciousness and neither requires transmission - it stand srevealed in consciousness as itself and cannot be explained in terms of variants . 

Conclusion : 

Its potency is partly revealed in that it is a prerequisite for the appearances of objects , without space (which is inconcievable ) there is nothing at all . It is a total abstraction of intutive perception and is knowledge itself .

Everything appears within it , and not that it appears within objects , it does not touch objects but permeates them  through and through , it has no quality of the objects rather it is the very opposite having no shape and not conditioned by time . It is known by perception of the grossest kind only when an object is present as it proves the consciousness of space in reverse - ie it indicates the possibility (just as in the discussion on Air the inversion of knowledge) of the inversion of consciousness in the event of a Subject - Subject orientation of which one is always a subject  and the other is both of the consciousness of subject and object at various junctures in time and space .

A clever reader would have by now by combining the above discussion be able to form a reasonable idea of Subjects and Objects and how this Subject (!!!!) may be approached correctly and with understanding

The above discursive was and is necessary in order to state the Law of Causation , but by now I hope a person would have an idea of what constitutes "subjective" and "objective" knowledge in contrast to the common usages of language and its inferior understanding . This error will be brought out  by the Law of Causation which follows 

(to be cont'd)

Search Theosophy.Net!


What to do...

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

A New View of Theosophy


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