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

Re: Theos-World Point of view- THIS is a Classic example

Nov 17, 2000 01:54 AM
by leonmaurer

In a message dated 11/16/00 9:27:07 AM, writes:

>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
>subject half-minded)
>Few days back I put a question to a member here. And the answer came the
>same day. I wish you would all read both.
>Before we get to that, please realize, I am not drawing any conclusion.
>But see if you agree with my bottom line.. (which is not my final belief). 
>>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 able 
>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
>or any particle... could not occur.. there is probably (more?) energy within 
>.. non-particle spaces(?).or the particles could not relate to one another..
>just they are in balance. IN BALANCE only in respect of OUR HUMAN 
>atomic structure?
>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 mirror
>that reflects anything that is placed in front of it. Answer this question,
>what is it that gets hot? Science is all correlations between things, it 
>recognize the fundamental metaphysical assumption that those things cannot 
>be separated from the phenomena of the mind even when using instruments 
>that push 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 which
>is something that does not relate to our (human) MOLECULAR structure; our
>measurement of mass/non-mass/negative-mass could not measure or relate
>to this so called "space/emptiness/nothingness". It does allow all 
>charactertistics to flow through it as far as molecular reactions are 
>without the most noticable activities/properties being hindered. But 
>out of the molecular/particle based action/reaction that it might interfere 
>is not detectable by us OR our "science"-based knowledge.. which has always 
>been founded upon the properties of visual, audible, touchable
>other 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, objects,
>properties, characteristics. Suddenly one of those or all of those reacted
>in one of their turmoils, and resulted to have a side-effect or by-product 
of a 
>new type of things which the older ingredients do not react to.. unless 
>something happens dramatic in a certian particular .. circumstance.. exactly 
>the one that started the new things or just it's reversal circumstance. The 
>way .. you melt raw iron, and then let it cool, it changes shape to what ever
>shape you allow it. Then if you reheat the new shape, it only then changes 
>to whatever new shape you allow it... etc etc.
>Now consider the new objects that came out of the older ingredients are the
>particles/atom that we are made of. Our current senses have been practised
>upon, thus what we have taken for granted and our current science knowledge
>is based upon.
>So, we our physical/paricle being (same as other particle objects) is just
>a structure floating in the older ingredients. And the ulitmate existance is
>actually the combination of "both" (or even more dimensions that do not
>react 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 the
>older ingredients. And there where we can relate to more than
>materials.. we can relate to dimensions beyond the atom based particles we 
>touch, hear and see. We can still relate to ...... things we have not been 
>to be so specifically explicit in our "science-based" knowledge, and we call
>all those variety of senses.. in a general term.."Spirituality"
>I look forward to corrections.. Let's take them step by step. So we can
>all follow together..including myself.

Good thinking.

The first step might be, from the standpoint of our physical senses, as well 
as from our mental and spiritual thinking and intuition, to accept the 
theosophical principle that ALL things -- whether the intangible 
multidimensional aspects of the earlier, primal, non metric primal beginning 
of the cosmos, or the tangible forms of our later measurable physical 
space-time -- are simply transformative, interrelated energy fields evolved 
out of ONE thing (the first primal triune field or cosmic being[s] that 
emanated out of the ineffable Absolute "rootless root" or "causeless cause"). 

Such being the case, then the vibrations that make up the earlier ingredients 
that are linked to the primal source, and the later evolved (and involved) 
ingredients growing out of their evolutionary transformations, as fields 
within fields within fields, etc., are eternally linked together and can 
influence each other through the holographic information carried by their 
analogous wave forms (descending from the near infinite frequency spectrums 
of the primal space to the analogous lower frequencies of our physical 
space-time) -- coupled with the intelligent, self conscious WILL rooted in 
their common points of origin. Therefore, any willfully induced change on 
any of these "coadunate but not consubstantial" interconnected fields of 
consciousness should be able to be transferred to and influence the actions, 
forms, memory, intelligence, knowledge, etc., of all the other fields of 
consciousness within any closed system. 

This relates to the seven fold nature of both the cosmos and each individual 
being in it -- from the most tenuous spiritual to the most gross physical 
aspects of both the earlier (spiritual to physical) fields or levels of 
consciousness of the primal cosmic beings, to those of the later beings that 
inhabit our presently experienced physical space-time universe. 

Doesn't this also relate to the theosophical teachings that no motion in the 
universe is ever lost, and that the ultimate memory of all action in the 
universe ultimately ends up as a memory in the higher fields of Akasha which 
empowers the "skandas" or tendencies that ultimately governs our karma -- as 
well as correlate with the scientific theories of "symmetry" and 
"conservation of energy"? Perhaps, in this sense, modern and post modern 
science and theosophy are not so far apart -- as HPB predicted might occur in 
this century.

Science, of course, that can only objectively examine the physical universe 
from a reductive point of view -- to induce the general from a knowledge 
(obtained by direct observation or measurement) of the particulars -- may 
never be able to fully understand the fundamental nature of all beings that 
descend from the general to the particular... Except, perhaps, they can come 
closer -- through the use of forms of abstract mathematics that has recently 
led to the Superstring/Membrane theory postulating a multidimensional 
universe that underlies the subtle zero-point energy fields of so called 
empty space, as well as the gross energy fields that make up the mass-of all 
the physical objects from quantum particles to galactic stars. 

Unfortunately, these theories only reach as far as the physical plane of 
existence, and cannot penetrate to the earlier cosmic fields out of which it 
has evolved -- or even postulate the existence of invisible inner fields, 
from spiritual through mental to astral that exist within every sentient 
being. But, perhaps, other forms of transcendental mathematics, such as the 
theory of sets that consider the possibility of an infinite series of 
infinities, may eventually be able to cross over this gap. Only time will 
tell how soon this can happen. 

I hope this is a sufficient start to give us a basis for further discussion.


[Back to Top]

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