Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00170)

Sham,

Since the Theosophical Teaching is firmly grounded in the idea that "The Universe
is Embodied Consciousness", on every possible plane, meaning that all the "living"
substance of the universe (atoms, in all their infinite divisibility, and
molecules, etc.), during any period of manifestation, no matter how local or vast
and distant, such as our planet, or the solar system, or the galaxy, and so on,
runs up into form BECAUSE of Thinking, if I more or less understand the teaching
correctly, it will be interesting to see what those students more knowledgeable
then us can add to the discussion.

Compiler
-------

Shampan-e-Shindh wrote:

> Here is a posting I once replied to without adding the original message. Please
> read my explanation completely until you reach the last line, after this
> attached message.. or I beg you not to jump to conclusion.
> ___________________________________________________________________
> From: Compiler <compiler@w...>
> Date: Fri Nov 17, 2000 7:24pm
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Point of view- THIS is a Classic
> example
>
> Sherab,
>
> This may or may not be helpful to some readers:
>
> As I read all of the stimulating scientific discussions here, and
> not
> personally having a scientific or scholarly bent, just being a
> student who
> is a theosophic generalist, so to say, in trying to understand it
> all, I
> keep clearly in the front of my mind at all times the fundamental
> Theosophic statement, assuming that it is true, until proven
> otherwise,
> that "The Universe is Embodied Consciousness" -- on every possible
> plane.
>
> Compiler
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> The key line that I was remarking upon is "Assuming that it is true, until
> proven otherwise"......
>
> Now I did cut only that line and added my opinion.. "What can be proven wrong
> today, can be proven otherwise tomorrow"
>
> My comment might have appeared to be out of context, but actually it was a
> general remark .....regardless of context, "including" this particular one. This
> particular context, I tried to explain with my poor vocabulary as I wrote
> earlier to Mr Dorje in message no. 466 of this archive.
>
> The (general) remark itself stood for our widening knowledge which learns new
> facts and most of the time manages to change our opinion and belief. Often one
> belief is discarded due to a new found fact, and then later another such newer
> fact over-rules the immediate-previous fact, making the discarding to be a
> mistake.. and we go through the reprocessing again.
>
> Please allow me few more paragraphs to explain the remark which should have been
> implied (due to obvious reasons ...like my time and yours) in message no. 466.
>
> "Universe is Embodied Consciousness".. There is no proof of we exist as any form
> of living-thing after the life-cycle of our earthly body. What that remark
> implies here is.. if we were not there ... the whole Universe's existence would
> have been nothing/insignificant.. as their would have been no living form with a
> "consciousness" to observe it's existence.
>
> Most of the facts would tell us, we did not exist, when the Universe did. We do
> not have to go very far, billions of years ago, when this earth was being
> prepared, where our physical structure was being "prepared" either by accident
> of nature or by a will-driven of One Unknown or by ourselves in another form...
> Universe existed. There is a good possibility, that premitive form of "us" was
> also prepared by another such accident or incident? .. And theoratically
> speaking if there was a first spot for all of it to begin from, be it in a
> butterfly or chaos system.. what ever.... It had nothing to do with.. our
> current human concept of "consciousness" in it's widest meaning in any plane
> that we can imagine today. Making the statement."The Universe is Embodied
> Consciousness", with no solid proof to be universally accepted. As much as my
> explanation being just as fragile in this particular paragraph.
> Where our misunderstanding started is........ I was "NOT" questioning that
> statement itself... the reasons to believe and not to believe that statement ..
> I am equally aware of.
>
> My remark "What can be proven wrong today, can be proven otherwise tomorrow" was
> simple, the proof if ever possible, does not finalize anything. We might get to
> see the past and detect life-forms in the most abstract existence .. with the
> media of a new found wave far more efficient than ether.... And we might be able
> to see and hear as far back as billions of years before the last Bang or what
> ever.. And restructure our belief as.. Universe exists.. with or without us...
> as no intelligence was detected.... and thus my remark was only on the
> Compiler's key-line "assuming that it is true, until proven otherwise".. what is
> proof today can be over-ruled tomorrow.. just few years after that discovery
> another new wave might show .. some life form (maybe ourselves in a more
> premitive form) existing all the way, as far back as we can see.
>
> And such dramatic changes in our beliefs have always been there.
>
> -Sham
>