Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00203)

And I would say that you have a very high level of
under-standing(sub-stance) rapidly vibrating in what would be called an
epiphany!

The inventor of the Bell Helicopter thought that we each might be cosmic
photons!

I have seen recently wherein philosophy historians are suspecting that
Democratus was referring to monads rather than the material atoms he has
been assumed to have been referring too. But. As above, so below. Physics
makes such an excellent metaphor for metaphysics.

Your writing makes me happy!

Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Compiler" <compiler@wisdomworld.org>
To: <theos-talk@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Point of view- THIS is a Classic example


> Eugene,
>
> Interesting!
>
> I think the teaching also tells us that all of the vibrating "substance"
of the
> universe, while in a period of manifestation, is nothing but infinite
points of
> "life", or monads, or units of consciousness, rays from the one infinite
and
> unconditioned "All". With each unit of the "All", the ONE MONAD, the ONE
LIFE,
> being on a journey to gain experience through relationships in every
"form" of
> phenomenal being that is built up on every possible plane that comes into
> existence -- all on the way to acquiring self-consciousness, and then to
> continue the journey, from a responsible point of view for all actions,
after
> the long journey of experience only from the "natural impulse" point of
view,
> back to the source.
>
> It is my understanding that it is not the phenomenal "forms" of the
elemental,
> mineral, vegetable, animal, and human kingdoms, as well as the forms of
every
> plane of cosmic "activity", inclusive of the different fields that we know
as
> forces, visible and invisible, atomic, molecular, cellular, etc., that are
the
> real eternal "LIFE", but all of the inner "lives" or the immaterial
monads, the
> most innner part of every atom and constituent part of every atom, which
are
> all just forms, that makes up every molecule, that are actually gaining
all of
> this experience. It is my understanding that monads, the infinite
individual
> eternal monads -- rays of the ONE, are the most inner parts of every one
of the
> above examples of vibrating form, which still exist even after the forms
are
> transformed, disintergrated, dissolved, etc.
>
> And I understand it to be the responsibility of Self-conscious monads,
whom the
> Teachings say are also THAT, meaning the ALL, in essence (along with the
less
> progressed and non-self-conscious units of the ONE LIFE), to guide the
rest
> which are operating under "natural impulse", following the vibrations, the
> impressions, the guidance, the plan, so to say, of the energy and forces,
made
> up of "lives", radiated by thinkers. It is my understanding that this is
the
> tremendous responsibiliy we have to help raise all units of life ever
higher
> and higher on this endless journey of each unit to get back and be at ONE
with
> the ONE from which it all emanated out of.
>
> Sorry for rambling on! :-) -- hopefully others will shed some better light
on
> the above, say it in better and clearer ways, and point out what might not
be
> in any way a reasonable explanation of what Theosophy teaches.
>
> Compiler
> -------
>
> Eugene Carpenter wrote:
>
> > Thankyou,
> >
> > I think you are correct.
> >
> > There is the question: Why is there something rather than nothing?
> >
> > It seems that the real question might be:
> > Why does there seem to be something rather than nothing?
> >
> > I have been working with the hypothesis that it is all nothing and that
> > Total Unconditioned Consciousness knows this. This nothing, it would
seem,
> > is one nothing, if we were to count it.
> >
> > Then there is this dilemna: It is nothing but it is one nothing. This
sets
> > up an oscillation in the mind or perhaps this sets up the basic
oscillation
> > that is the mind. This oscillation, vibration, sound, light, etc. then
> > manifests the nothing and it's oneness alternately, so one, essentially
> > nothing at all, is oscillating, employing time and space to perceive
"self",
> > etc.
> >
> > ALL falls into various frequencies of oscillation and ALL rises again
into
> > the higher frequencies and there is the chance of transcendending the
whole
> > oscillating system(through integration of the system, i.e. through the
love
> > of the heart)(this takes profound will) and then getting a chance to
rest
> > deeply before getting drawn into the whole system once again, falling,
> > becoming involved, and thinking one's way back out again. It is like
trying
> > to solve the liar's paradox or any self-referencing statement with the
mind
> > alone.
> >
> > "This statement is false."
> >
> > If true it is false. If false its is true.
> >
> > True, false, true, false. This causes oscillation in the mind. No
> > mind-like machine can be built that can resolve this oscillation.
> >
> > A meaningful statement can be true or false or contingent. This
statement
> > seems meaningful but is oscillating and Spencer-Brown points out that it
is
> > "imaginary" and analogous to the mathematically meaningful statement:
> >
> > x = -1/x
> >
> > x^2 = the square root of -1
> >
> > x = i (oscillating plus one, minus one)
> >
> > This brings time into the system wherein before the system was logical
and
> > "outside" or transcendent to time.
> >
> > Therefore, trying to follow Spencer-Brown, a meaningful statement can be
> > true, false, contingent or. . . . . TA DA! . . . . Imaginary!( watch
out
> > for the potential semantic trap here)
> >
> > This is where we can all put our heads and hearts together and dismiss
this
> > as a waste- of- time- to- think- about or hopefully, for my little ego,
the
> > key to solving the mysteries of the universe.
> >
> > If there were only one state of consciousness then there would be
nothing
> > else. But, whenever there are at least two different states of
> > consciousness then there are three and then zillionions.(and you thought
> > rabbits were. . .) Whenever the heart is unable to re-integrate the
mind
> > then we fall. When the heart and love can re-integrate the mind, we
rise
> > again into the bossum of the ALL-MIGHTY ONE. One learns ever-more
through
> > periodically suffering this.
> >
> > I can only write this in relation to you.
> >
> > Gene
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Compiler" <compiler@wisdomworld.org>
> > To: <theos-talk@egroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 7:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Point of view- THIS is a Classic example
> >
> > > Eugene,
> > >
> > > Maybe these thoughts that you generated in me by your ideas might be
> > > useful, if valid in any way, according to the Theosophical teachings,
for
> > > those more knowledgeable to assist us all with:
> > >
> > > It would seem that "substance" is the other side of the great
> > unconditioned
> > > "All" when it is stirred up, as in vibrational, by the force of
thinking,
> > > so that relationships can then be experienced through all the phenomea
> > > (which is this substance in motion) on all of the many "conditioned"
> > planes
> > > of existence that come into existence, are experienced through, and
then
> > > fade away leaving each thinker with the "experience" gained for the
> > > particular cycle, until the next one begins.
> > >
> > > Compiler
> > > -------
> > >
> > > Eugene Carpenter wrote:
> > >
> > > > If Total Unconditioned Consciousness and Bare Subjectivity
> > > >
> > > > is all there is,
> > > >
> > > > then what is substance?
> > > >
> > > > Could it be that substance is the under-standing of the above?
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't under-standing the above take time and space?
> > > >
> > > > Are we not Total Consciousness and Bare Subjectivity
> > > >
> > > > gradually understanding who we are?
> > > >
> > > > Gene
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Sherab Dorje" <sherab@wenet.net>
> > > > To: <theos-talk@egroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 9:46 PM
> > > > Subject: Theos-World Re: Point of view- THIS is a Classic example
> > > >
> > > > > There is a one to one correspondence with your quote below,
> > > > > > that "The Universe is Embodied Consciousness" --
> > > > > > on every possible plane.
> > > > > and the quote that I posted earlier in this discussion that is
> > > > > attributed to Lord Maitreya,
> > > > > "Nothing exists apart from the Mind,
> > > > > Awareness eventually comes to realize this."
> > > > >
> > > > > One could also say in equal truth, Consciousness is the Universe
or
> > > > > that the Universe is Conscious. Either way, there is no getting
> > > > > around the truth that all is in Mind. Awareness is That, embodied
or
> > > > > not. It is the non-recognition of that intrinsic awareness that
> > > > > brings about the embodiment.
> > > > >
> > > > > As to whether this is helpful to readers or not would be hard to
> > > > > determine. If there is some juice in a thread then will get legs
and
> > > > > have some participation. If one is drawn to this forum then they
are
> > > > > drawn to the Mysteries, that much we have in common. To invoke the
> > > > > Mysteries is to evoke the metaphysical dyanmic between the student
> > > > > and the teacher, the disciple and the guru, the chela and the
chohan,
> > > > > the novice and the lama, in other words to teach and to learn.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for your comments. There are many discussions taking
place
> > > > > here but not all that I can participate in.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sherab
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In theos-talk@egroups.com, Compiler <compiler@w...> wrote:
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > -------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sherab Dorje wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Discussion indeed! Thank you for your stimulating questions
and
> > > > > > > thoughts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First, some thoughts about Sham's questions after sleeping on
> > > > > them.
> > > > > > > Good questions require good answers and having just read LMH's
> > > > > > > posting on this subject that needs sometime to digest.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Given that there is no way to separate the Mind from the
> > > > > awareness of
> > > > > > > phenomena what can we understand about these differing points
of
> > > > > > > view. Western science regards consciousness as a phenomena
giving
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > substantial form, where as, spiritually regarded, mind appears
as
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > infinitely empty container in which all phenomena manifest and
has
> > > > > > > certain inherent qualities.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There appears to be no problem with regarding inter-molecular
> > > > > space
> > > > > > > as a kind of primordial substance. What appears to awareness,
be
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > iron or emptyness is really a matter of the state of
awareness, or
> > > > > > > state of mind. Substance appears as a state of consciousness.
In
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > as consciousness unfolds or the state of mind changes, as in
> > > > > death,
> > > > > > > then what follows is a change in the appearance of phenomena
or
> > > > > > > substance. As human beings, we are subjects within certain
realms
> > > > > > > where substances conform to their karmic causes. I believe
that
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > is what HPB refers to as the limits beyond which we can go
not. If
> > > > > > > there is any way to characterize HPB's work, it is that she is
> > > > > > > showing us the naked reality of our consciousness and asking
us to
> > > > > > > examine That.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This does not preclude or exclude the consciousness of beings
that
> > > > > > > exist at other energetic frequencies or interpenetrating
planes of
> > > > > > > being and that are subject to their corresponding realms that
are
> > > > > > > just as substantial as iron is in our realm though those
> > > > > substances
> > > > > > > may appear to us as space in our realm. So nothing exists
apart
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > the mind, regardless of whatever state the mind is in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Another approach we may take to analyze this is to regard
> > > > > phenomena
> > > > > > > as effect produced by a cause. Force, must be the sensible
> > > > > > > appearance of this process, the movement of energetic flux, of
> > > > > > > manifestation or pralaya due to cause. Phenomena appears due
to
> > > > > cause
> > > > > > > and when the cause is removed the phenomena disappears without
a
> > > > > > > trace. This also applies to the mind and its state. Different
> > > > > states
> > > > > > > of Mind come about because of causes so it follows that in
other
> > > > > > > states of Mind different phenomena and substance will arise in
> > > > > > > awareness.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is not my intent to flippantly reduce the wealth of
knowledge
> > > > > > > revealed by science to mere mental clutter, that would be
> > > > > > > disrespectful nor is it my intent to reduce spiritual views of
> > > > > Mind
> > > > > > > to an unregardable eternalist view. Science is an ego, an "I"
that
> > > > > > > wants to always box things in or find smaller and smaller
> > > > > > > compartments of usefully quantifiable corresponding informatio
n.
> > > > > It
> > > > > > > does this by generating them with concepts, mental constructs.
> > > > > When
> > > > > > > one box of concept is complete another larger box is under
> > > > > > > development somewhere else. The question, is this, are we just
> > > > > > > creating more causes for a larger universe or universes? And
if
> > > > > so,
> > > > > > > then we must examine the motivation for producing these
causes.
> > > > > That
> > > > > > > line of questioning ultimately leads back to the purpose of
being
> > > > > > > human. This, I regard, as the highest Theosophical duty.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is a real pleasure to take part in such a stimulating
> > > > > > > converstation. More on this thread later.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sherab
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>