Theos-Talk Archives (January 2001 Message tt00033)

Dear Leon,

Thankyou for your very pertinent powerful and yet compassionate comments. I
will take them to mind and heart.

I keep in mind this, which is great food for thought for me:



Total Unconditioned Consciousness and Bare Subjectivity

AS REPRESENTED BY

Absolute abstract motion and absolute abstract space.




My intuition is that these two are identical but that it takes time and
space for the student to understand this. One needs to clear the mind of
all illusion; emotions of all glamour and the behavior of all bad habits.
Then one's perception of of Total Consciousness as distorted motion/space
becomes clarified Absolute motion/space and is the perfect representation of
the one Consciousness.

I sense something else, however. This Consciousness is empty: not in a
negative sense, not in a positive sense, but in a neutral, restful, peaceful
sense; a peaceful sense that surpasses our understanding, even the most
perfect understanding.


I am happy to start with:


"Nothing comes from nothing."



To me this states the basic fact. Nothing can remain nothing and yet be
stated as equations. These equations are harmonized with our integrated and
total experience of the world and one is allowed to assert that for every
action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. It seems to me that
the Buddha meant that the fact is that there is nothing. One cannot create
something out of nothing so that what seems like something is really
nothing. Nothing(no assumptions, neti, neti) appears as nothing to the
enlighened mind. All thought upon the subject is now over. One is free to
leave, yet, there are others who do not see this. Thought is over but the
compassion begins. These others are projections of one's own true self and
enlightenment must now be allowed to sink deeper and deeper into all of
"creation". There is a rock solid foundational reason that one can't allow
any sentient being to suffer without trying one's best to help that being.
Altruism is a choice, but there are very good reasons for choosing such a
life.

Leon, I accept that it is probable that what you are explaining to me is
true, that there must be assumptions that aren't themselves proven, but,
part of me, a foolish part, perhaps a wise part, or both, senses that there
may be no need for any unproven assumptions, just Self-evident Truth.

Gene


----- Original Message -----
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Struggling to find the origin of the point of it
All.


>
> In a message dated 01/03/01 10:55:28 AM, Ecarpent@co.la.ca.us writes:
>
> >I am trying to work from universals downward and wish to find and then
> >proceed step by step downward from the most spiritual to the more
material.
> > I wish every step to be logical and provable and subject to intense
> constructive
> >criticism.
>
> Good idea.
>
> > There are assumptions on which plane geometry is constructed. 'twould
> >be neat to start at the beginning without any assumptions whatsoever, no?
>
> Right... No. There has to be an assumption before anything can start. And
> (besides the fact that there is no beginning or end) the basic assumption
> must be that "Nothing comes from nothing" -- as the Buddha pointed out.
HPB
> also said that before any phenomena of the manifest universe be taken into
> consideration, one must first know and accept the Three Fundamental
> Principles on which every thing and every action rests. Without being
> subject to proof, these principles are nothing more than presumptions or
> axioms that must underlie any plane and solid geometries or other pure
> mathematics that are latent or noumenal in the Absolute, and that only
become
> phenomenal symbols of universal law and evolution after its initial
> manifestation when phenomenal mind can recognize them.
>
> Therefore, in addition to the "principles" that guide the emanation,
> involution and evolution of the Cosmos, as well as all the monads in it,
> there is a basic assumption that cannot be denied, and which is the
rootless
> root of the fundamental principles themselves... And, that is; the
infinite
> and eternal "abstract motion" -- which is the inherent nature of the
Absolute
> itself. Being such, it cannot be "known" by finite, time-sequenced
mind...
> But, it's actions can be deduced from the laws inherent in its nature
coupled
> with the experience gathered through observance of its periodic phenomena.
> Thus, science, philosophy and religion must be applied synthetically
before
> we consider any symbolic representations of universal involution and
> evolution. To base one's assumptions on any one of them, alone, is doing
a
> disservice to all followers or potential students of the Wisdom Teachings.
> Symbols must never be confused with the real thing symbolized. That's
> probably why HPB repeatedly said the same things in many different ways.
> >
> >When I listed the ten dots I am getting into an area that I would love
> >to understand better but don't. I was delighted when a mathematician
pointed
> >out to me that the point, the two points of the line, the three points
> >of the triangle and the four points of the tetrahedron form the ten
points
> >of the tetractys.
>
> The problem here is that the mathematician jumped the gun and began mixing
> 2-dimensional (plane) with 3-dimensional (solid) geometry before he
completed
> the two dimensional series from point, to line, to triangle, to square,
which
> also adds up to the ten points of the 2-dimensional "tetraktys" or
> Pythagorean Triangle. The tetrahedron belongs to another level of
> manifestation, although it is the bridge between the linear and the non
lin
> ear worlds. Thus, there are always at least two ways of looking at things.
> There are actually two separate logos before the phenomenal
> subjective-objective physical Universe (or Solar System) appears as the
> third. The Master said, seemingly paradoxically, "These completely
> subjective states precede the later objective states -- yet, they are
> objective to their preceding states." None of this can be "proven," of
> course... But, it can be known intuitionally.
>
> The logic or reasoning, on the other hand, follows from the three
fundamental
> principles, and can only be expressed symbolically with numbers and forms
> once manifestation begins. Thus consciousness (Perusha) and matter
> (Prakriti) are on two different but interconnected levels of
manifestation,
> with mind (Mahat) the mediator between them, and the surrounding
intelligent
> energy (Fohat) empowering and informing them all. That is the real
tetraktys
> (later transmuted into the Tetragrammaton, Yod Hay Voh Hay). Remember
both
> the triangle and the square must have a supporting point in the center of
> their superscribed circles, around which they must spin to remain
stable --
> as do all the regular polygons from the tetrahedron to the dodecahedron.
Thus
> "the three the one the four the one the five, the twice seven, the sum
> total." The intuitive student will know what this means with relation to
the
> sacred geometries as well as to the involution and evolution of the
Cosmos.
>
> So one has:
> >
> >(on the microcosmic scale)
> >1. Logoic plane(state of consciousness)
> >2. Monadic plane
> >3. Atmic plane: Atma, the one mathematical point within the circle
> >4. Buddhic plane: the two points of the line
> >5. Manasic plane(higher Manas): the three points of the triangle
> >
> > Manasic plane(lower Manas): the four points of the tetrahedron( here
> >I'm not at all clear, I've always studied the SD down to the level of the
> >triangle and then stopped, so . . . . help! I'm guessing that the
> tetrahedron
> >stands for the concrete, practical mind)
>
> This guess is certainly wrong, since there is no logic for any of the
> preceding assumptions, as well as a total confusion between the meaning of
> "plane" as contrasted with a "plenum" or "field." We must remember that
the
> use of the point and the linear mathematical progressions, from the point
> through the line, the plane and the solid geometries, as representations
of
> the first stages of genesis, are purely symbolical and have no direct
> relationship with a later differentiation of a Universe that is
> multidimensional and extends non-linearly as "coadunate but not
> consubstantial" triune (or Monadic) fields within fields within fields --
as
> plenums rather than planes. And, that the limited action in linear
directions
> through the points between and at the centers of each such plenum or field
is
> the "plane" that is referred to theosophically. For a clearer picture of
> this, see the symbolic diagrams at:
> http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
> >
> >The paragraph you have quoted seems so important and crucial to
understand.
> > Perhaps others might help clarify. I wish to stay focussed on the
problem
> >of "where" the mathematical point comes from. I suspect that it is
potential
> >only at the logoic plane as there is nothing, no abstract space even,
that
> >might allow it to appear. The circle representing Total unconditioned
> >consciousness and bare subjectivity must be PRESENT in order for the
point
> >to "Appear" and start the creative cycle once again. My experience is
> >that I get tired, I forget, then I rest and meditate . . . . and
remember:
> >essentially it is all absolutely nothing whatsoever! To me this is a
tiny
> >spark of enlightenment. It takes so little to make fool laugh and
giggle.
>
> Unfortunately, while you may assume it's absolutely nothing at all and get
> all giggly about it, keep in the back of your mind that the herd of
elephants
> bearing down on you are real enough "things" that could trample you into
the
> real enough "ground." Until we leave this level of existence, what we
> experience on it in consciousness is as real to us as the field is to
itself.
> The point and the circle are each the source of the other and must exist
> simultaneously as an eternal duality in triune unity along with the space
> surrounding and in between them -- whether manifest or unmanifest.
Therefore,
> all assumptions of universal origins must be based on the axioms provided
by
> the three fundamental principles -- which, together, presume that there
must
> be an existing something in the "Absolute abstract space" before anything
can
> emanate, involve, or evolve out of it. And, that "something" is the
infinite
> energy of abstract motion that, as Krishna points out, "produces this
entire
> universe and yet remains separate and undiminished."
>
> Therefore, we must assume that before manifestation, the Kosmos exists in
> potentiality as a mathematical point of zero dimension around which
> circulates infinite abstract energy containing within itself all the
> potentialities of the entire series of universes to come. That's what
makes
> it Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent. Therefore, since there is
nothing
> in the primal zero-point itself, all the past present and future
potentials
> must reside in the circulating energy surrounding it and tied to it.
Remember
> also, that in order for the "center of the Universe to be everywhere (and
its
> circumference nowhere"), it's zero-point dimension must always remain
zero.
> Therefore, it follows that there is no difference between the Absolute
> abstract point of pre logoic existence and the mathematical zero-points at
> the ends of our rulers or the apexes of our geometric figures -- up to the
3,
> 5, 7, 10, 14... 49, etc., dimensions of manifest Space and all the points
in
> between.
>
> So, the actual "point" of it all could be the *purpose* of it all as
> explained in the third fundamental principle. Thus the fundamentals start
> with a point and end with a point -- with a series of cycles in between...
> And, everything proceeds further in accordance with analogy and
> correspondence. That's all the logic we need to figure out how it all
> evolves and involves from one stage to another. All the fine points of
such
> cyclic action can be deduced by pure intuition tempered by reason (along
with
> a few hints given by those who know. But, these "knowers" can't show you
what
> they actually see or experience in their higher mind's eye. We each have
to
> find out all that for ourselves -- and then, try to explain it to
others.:-)
>
> Respectfully,
>
> LHM
>
>
>
>