Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00211)

Eugene,

Sometimes when I think of the the ideas of the infinite unknowable "Absolute",
and the "ALL", and the ideas like "Total Unconditioned Consciousness", "Bare
Subjectivity", etc., and we are told in the Teachings that we are THAT (the
ALL) in essence, ever evolving toward getting back to it, I think that the
teaching also tells us, or implies, in general, overall, that this can never
actually happen. By this I mean that, even though we are rays of THAT, we will
never, no matter how high we may become and evolve to be, within the many and
various levels of Adeptship, reach the top, so to say, and become the ALL
ourselves, but always stay, as individual units of life, no mater how wise and
wide our scope of understanding and consciousness expands to be, just below
that ABSOLUTE-ALL-NOTHING point, with it forever being out of each unit's
reach. This leaves always in the action, so to say, by always related to the
duality where all the action actually takes place, inclusive of the endless
chain and sequence of cycles of activity and cycles of inactivity, from
manvantara to manvantara, from universe to universe, and so on, where we can
forever be useful in the various and endless chains of hierarchies of being,
even ones where we may even rise to be part of the highest group of beings who
are the lead guides, so to say, no matter how high we are able to be involved
in the universe and have relationships with the rest of evolving life.

Something like that, anyway! :-)

Meanwhile the natural workings of the universe have a built-in "Catch-22", so
to say: Meaning that without "altruism" being practiced by self-conscious and
responsible beings, in relationship to all beings on all planes of evolving
life, we can't rise past certain points of development to the many levels that
are known and considered the highest possible levels, at least for each
manvantaric cycle -- since there is no real top of the heap -- which would be
the ALL. And it has nothing to do with sentiment, as I understand the teaching
telling us, but is simply the way the universe works -- in other words, it
naturally demands it (Unity, love, brotherhood, right human relations, one for
all and all for one, and so on) in its impersonal dynamics.

If these ideas are more or less correct, as being the teachings of Theosophy,
and as being the reality of the dynamics of the universe, working dynamics of
cause and effect that are considered practical and just (as in justice) for all
units, who could have devised a better universal process for all units of
eternal life to be involved in, than the one that naturally and simply IS?

Compiler
-------

Eugene Carpenter 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@wenet.net>
> 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
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>