Re: Theos-World Point of view- THIS is a Classic example
Nov 16, 2000 08:07 AM
by Eugene Carpenter
I think this is all wonderfully creative. Congratulations! Well done!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shampan-e-Shindh" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Theosophy Talk" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 6:26 AM
Subject: Theos-World Point of view- THIS is a Classic example
> Hello List,
> First I wish to thankyou all for making me think.
> (I have been too busy in some other forums. I did not wish to touch this
> Few days back I put a question to a member here. And the answer came the
> day. I wish you would all read both.
> Before we get to that, please realize, I am not drawing any conclusion.
> if you agree with my bottom line.. (which is not my final belief). How 2
> different points of view can make it appear to be conflicting, but it is
> actually not. And if you think hard, all of our points of views will be
> co-exist in some possibilities.. and then we dig further.
> The Question I put to Mr Dorje:
> What is intermolecular-space?.. there has to be something there.. or the
> attraction-distraction-re-fraction, between molecules, electron or proton
> particle... could not occur.. there is probably (more?) energy within the
> non-particle spaces(?).or the particles could not relate to one another..
> they are in balance. IN BALANCE only in respect of OUR HUMAN atomic
> And Mr Dorje replied:
> [Sherab] Intermolecular space seems to be like any other space, it is
> indestructible, you can't cut it, you can't conquer it, it is by nature
> clear and lucid, it is a fundamental element. It is like the mind, a
> reflects anything that is placed in front of it. Answer this question,
> it that gets hot? Science is all correlations between things, it doesn't
> recognize the fundamental metaphysical assumption that those things can
> separated from the phenomena of the mind even when using instruments that
> the furthest limits of the known universe. Is this not true?
> To me the question and answer is almost like.."half glass full or empty"
> Okay now my proposal.. Why cannot intermolecular space be a substance
> something that does not relate to our(human) MOLECULAR structure; our
> measurement of mass/non-mass/negative-mass could not measure or relate to
> so called "space/emptiness/nothingness". It does allow all
> flow through it as far as molecular reactions are concerned, without the
> noticable activities/properties being hindered. But anything out of the
> molecular/particle based action/reaction that it might interfere with, is
> detectable by us OR our "science"-based knowledge.. which has always been
> founded upon the properties of visual, audible, touchable senses....in
> words, the atom/particle based knowledge.
> There are many posssibilities.. One major that occurs in my mind.
> concept) Space there is, it is made of things, it has ingredients,
> properties, characteristics. Suddenly one of those or all of those reacted
> one of their turmoils, and resulted to have a side-effect or by-product of
> type of things which the older ingredients do not react to.. unless
> happens dramatic in a certian particular .. circumstance.. exactly like
> that started the new things or just it's reversal circumstance. The same
> you melt raw iron, and then let it cool, it changes shape to what ever
> allow it. Then if you reheat the new shape, it only then changes shape to
> whatever new shape you allow it... etc etc.
> Now consider the new objects that came out of the older ingredients are
> particles/atom that we are made of. Our current senses have been practised
> thus what we have taken for granted and our current science knowledge is
> So, we our physical/paricle being (same as other particle objects) is just
> structure floating in the older ingredients. And the ulitmate existance is
> actually the combination of "both" (or even more dimensions that do not
> with particles directly)
> Force or energy we can feel; as they are sitting somewhere between these 2
> levels of ingredients. And our mind is the same.. it still carries some of
> ingredients/knowledge/senses, of both the wave-lengths. Our mind is no
> particle-based object.. but it is perhaps an object in the dimension of
> older ingredients. And there .....is where we can relate to more than
> materials.. we can relate to dimensions beyond the atombased particles we
> hear and see. We can still relate to ...... things we have not been able
> so specifically explicit in our "science-based" knowledge, and we call all
> variety of senses.. in a general term.."Spirituality"
> I look forward to corrections.. Let's take them step by step. So we can
> follow together..including myself.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application