Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00207)

Sherab,

Your motto reminded me of the story of the Christian walking down the street
waving a sign that said:

"Jesus is coming"

Coming the other way was a Buddhist monk waving a sign that said,

"Buddha here-now"

...Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sherab Dorje [mailto:sherab@wenet.net]
> Sent: 21 November 2000 20:07
> To: theos-talk@egroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Point of view- THIS is a Classic example
>
>
> HA HA HA HA HO
>
> Be Now Here Be No Where.
>
> Lets keep talking about this. I can't tell you how much this thread
> excites me.
>
> My motto is, "You have to be present to win."
>
> Sherab
>
>
> --- In theos-talk@egroups.com, "Eugene Carpenter" <Ecarpent@c...>
> wrote:
> > Sherab,
> >
> > I take it(bare subjectivity) from the early statements by HPB in
> the Secret
> > Doctrine. Absolute abstract motion REPRESENTING Total
> Unconditioned
> > Consciousness and Absolute abstract space REPRESENTING Bare
> > Subjectivity.(Parabrahmam/mulaprakriti)
> >
> > It is not that I understand, well, what I'm writing about.
> >
> >
> > I agree that subjectivity and objectivity go together. But.
> Perhaps they
> > must alternate within the mind and are mutally exclusive pairs of
> opposites.
> > I'll bet that logically, and therefore outside of time and space,
> all there
> > is is Total Consciousness and Bare Subjectivity and that during
> > manifestation there is subjectivity at the atma-buddhi-higher manas
> levels
> > of consciousness and dawning objectivity at the lower mental,
> astral and
> > physical levels of consciousness. One is real and logical and the
> other is
> > illusion. Boy do the posivitists have a lot to learn. Perhaps one
> is best
> > symbolized by the dear absolute abstract space of Sir Issac Newton
> and the
> > other the relative space of the Leibniz et al crew. One needs both.
> >
> > In sum. I don't really know. I just sense that we can all work at
> this
> > high level of curiousity and really get somewhere, if even
> this "somewhere"
> > turns out to be . . . ."nowhere".
> >
> > Gene
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sherab Dorje" <sherab@w...>
> > To: <theos-talk@egroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 8:16 AM
> > Subject: Theos-World Re: Point of view- THIS is a Classic example
> >
> >
> > > Gene,
> > >
> > > Substance is a state of energy, a precipitation of energy, it is
> also
> > > phenomena, and the perception of substance is relative to ones
> state
> > > of Mind. Understanding, or knowledge, in the ordinary sense is all
> > > relative and is a feature of space and time. I am not sure
> that "Bare
> > > Subjectivity" can be or should be associated with "Unconditioned
> > > Consciousness" because the awareness of "Unconditioned
> Consciousness"
> > > is in the realm of absolute truth and is therefore not bound by
> space
> > > or time, time being all at once, and space is totally without
> > > obstruction.
> > >
> > > We all know there can not be the subjective without the objective
> > > because these are two sides of the same coin. "Unconditioned
> > > Consciousness" is a non-ordinary awareness that is non-dual in its
> > > cognitive aspects. This special awareness is ever present existing
> > > within ordinary awareness not excluding it. The term, "Bare
> > > Subjectivity" is one that is baffling to me and perhaps I do not
> > > understand your use of the term. Would you care to explain what
> you
> > > understand it to mean?
> > >
> > > Sherab
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In theos-talk@egroups.com, "Eugene Carpenter" <Ecarpent@c...>
> > > 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@w...>
> > > > 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
> > > information.
> > > > > 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>