Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00112)

Thursday, February 15, 2001

Dear Friends:

Very thought provoking, to me.

Might I add ? ( Dallas )

--------------

Seems to me that if you step away from the ABSOLUTENESS into
manifestation that from that UNITY which will forever include
everything whether manifested or not, There, there emerges the
MANIFESTING LOGOS as a necessary concept. I believe H.P.B. has
called this the UNIVERSAL MONAD (S.D. II 311; I 21; ) because
she says :"Duality supervenes in the contrast of Spirit (or
consciousness) and Matter, Subject and Object." (S.D. I 15( And
that SPIRIT/MATTER is one way of defining the Monad/s In this
regard she also indicates they are "pre-existent (S.D. II 111,
I-266) They are "rays" from the ABSOLUTE (S.D. II 167), They are
"spontaneously self-active (S.D. I 631) They are combinations
of ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS (S.D. I178, 570, 238, II 57)

Of recent years Science discovers "dark matter." Then further
they say that this forms the majority of the contents we name
"SPACE:. And it further seem that Science is willing to allocate
a large portion of hitherto named "empty" Space to this.

A further thought emerges in minds bent on following the advances
of Science. Today one emerges as follows:


In today's LOS ANGELES TIMES February 15, 2001, VALLEY section
p. 2 we have and article by K. C. Cole in which it is written

--------------------------

"From our privileged spot at the center of the cosmos (or so we
thought) just a few hundred years ago, we fell into the arms of a
very ordinary spiral galaxy, one of billions in the universe.

Our solar system, astronomers tell us, congealed out of debris of
long-dead stars the way fat congeals in soup.

...cosmologists now tell us that even the universe may be nothing
special--just one of a very large litter of universes ...It's
even possible, some physicists say, that we experience only a
small sliver of the true spatial dimensions of space--like pond
scum confined to the surface of a much deeper universe, whose
depth we will never fathom. ...

... as the late biologist Lewis Thomas put it, the situation is
far worse than that [that we're all descended from hairy, small
brained hominids] WE can now trace our ancestors back to
bacteria...

[Lynn Margulis' delightful book "MICROCOSMOS" says bacteria] not
only rule the Earth, they rule us as well. Fully 10% of our dry
body weight consists of bacteria. We depend on them for
digestion ...In a very real sense, they invented us for their own
purposes, as warm salty environments in which to breed and
prosper...

Today we know we are formed from the same stuff as stars. We
are a piece--not separate--from this grand entangled cosmos.

And we control--at least to some extent--our destinies.

More impressive still, our brains have ;learned to spin
space-time into black holes and tame quantum unruliness to
operate computers... Along the way, of course, we've also learned
enough to allow us to destroy much of it without the help of any
gods at all. This, in itself, is an awesome sort of power.

So I's not entirely clear whether the discoveries of science have
really made us more humble. But they have certainly, as the late
physicist Frank Oppenheimer put it "changed the nature of our
humility." -- K. C. Cole ( L. A. TIMES Feb 15 2001 )







-----Original Message-----
From: Katinka Hesselink [mailto:katinka_hesselink@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 3:11 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Emptiness, sunnyata and the Absolute of
Blavatsky

Hi Jerry,

Well, you have me confused. But lets see if we can still get
somewhere. I
tend to think we agree on more than it seems.

> From: "Gerald Schueler" <gschueler@earthlink.net>
> >>How come you make the first One the Divine Monad? It seems to
me that
> she
> means SPACE, or the nothingness which is, even when/where there
is no
> something - like matter, or thought or whatever. Using the term
> nothingness
> also because it refers to emptiness. I am still unclear on
whether the
> two can be equated.<<

CUT