Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00461)

Hi, Katinka:

Kant's argument was that we hold certain views about
time and space which cannot be tested empirically, and
yet which we are unable to contradict. Dor example,
imagine that you are in a space ship and reach the end
of space. It is possible to imagine rreaching a
barrier of some sort which cannot be crossed, but it
is difficult (without special training) to imagine
that space simply comes to an end and that there is no
space beyond a certain point. Most people would say
that at every point in space there must be yet another
point in space beyond it, and that space is therefore
infinite. Yet this idea cannot be tested empirically
(is therefore not a posteriori). It is therefore an a
priori assumption, and at the same time cannot be
imagined to be untrue (is therefore said to be held
with "apodeictic" certainty.)

The same can be said of time. For every moment in
time we believe there must be another, and cannot
imagine time coming absolutely to an end (even though
the Book of Revelation predicts that it will.) We
cannot test this assumption, therefore it is a priori
and not a posteriori. And yet we cannot imagine it
not to be true, thus we say that we hold this idea
with apodeictic certainty.

Since these concepts are both a priori and apodeictic,
Kant argued that they gave to do with the way our
minds are wired, and say nothing about external
reality. He therfore maintained that they are what he
called "Transcendental Contents of Consciousness."

Incidentally, Einstein claims space does come to an
end, and that the universe is egg shaped, which is
intruiguing in light of certain statements in the SD,
but I defy anyone to imagine an end to space.

Now suppose that space is completely empty. If you
were a divine being in a universe which was completely
empty, you would not be conscious because there would
be nothing for you to be conscious of. As Sartre
pointed out, consciousness is intentional. There has
to be an object of consciousness for there to be
consciousness. In order to be conscious of distances,
we would have to imagine that there were at least two
objects in space. The existence of these objects
would make the space between them an object of
consciousness and the concept of distance would come
into existence as an object of mental consciousness
(manas). In Eastern philosophy, thoughts can be
objects of consciousness just as phenomenal
representations of external objects can be objects of
consciousness. This makes sense, since otherwise we
would not be conscious of thinking, but would only
experience the products of thought, as some animals
are thought to do. In the Buddhist systems, mind, or
consciousness of mental contents, is the sixth sense. 
In the Anugita, as HPB points out, mind and
understanding are the sixth and the seventh senses.


In the SD it is theorized that space was entirely
empty, or more precisely, that no point in space could
be distinguished from any other point, during the
Maha-Pralaya. If we assume that two monads have
appeared in previously empty space, what has happened
is that it has become possible to distinguish between
the part of space where the monad is not (Not-Being)
and the part of space where the monad is (Being). It
is all Being, of course, so the language is imprecise.
The point at which Not-Being ends and Being begins is
known in science as a "boundary condition," so I shall
adopt that term for this discussion. It is the
existence of these boundary conditions which makes
consciousness possible. The boundary conditions are
themselves the primitive objects of consciousness. 
Without an object of consciousness, there is no
consciousness. The process by which these boundary
conditions come into existence Blavatsky calls
"differentiation."

Now imagine that a further development takes place and
consciousness turns on itself, so that there is
consciousness of consciousness. Consciousness uses
itself as an object, in other words. I think this is
what Sartre called "reflexive consciousness," but it
has been years since I read him. Consciousness would
have to come into existence before it could use itself
as an object, and therefore Blavatsky says that this
is the third stage.

See how simple this is?

Now keeping in mind the idea of pralayas and
manvantaras, apply this to your own consciousness. 
You go to sleep at night (pralaya) and are awake
during the day (manvantara) but there is some evidence
that there are pralayas and mancantaras of much
shorter duration. A television screen flashes fifty
to sixty still pictures a second before your eyes and
creates the illusion of continuous movement necause,
as I understand it, our consciousness of the world is
not continuous. Instead of continuously viewing the
world, we experience it as a series of what James
called "specious moments" and what Aristotle
intuitively called NOWs. Ten of these NOWs are
experienced subjectively as ten times as much "time"
as one of them. Thst is why Einstein was able to say
that trn minutes waiting for your lover to show on a
street corner might seem like ten hours, whereas ten
hours with him or her might seem like ten minites. 
Time is a subkective experience. But the NOWs exist
only in our consciousness. Thee are no NOWs in the
outside world, and in this sense at least Berkeley was
right. We experience time and space phenomenally (in
consciousness) even though these experiences do not
represent anything external to ourselves (noumena.)

It therefore appears to me that if the ultimate Ground
of everything is unconscious, as we are taught that it
is, then there must be no time or space or it, and it
is therefore outside time and space.

A further implication of that is that it is
meaningless to speak of Maha-Pralaya as lasting for so
many thousands of millions of years. I think Watts
was probably right on this one when he said these
numbers were merely intended to give an idea of
vastness, and were not intended to be taken literally.

Steve

--- Katinka Hesselink <katinka_hesselink@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> 
> The strange thing is - I feel I know for a fact that
> atma,
> or absolute consciousness, or something is outside
> space in
> time - as in: space and time are absolutely
> irrelevant to
> atma. But my mind can't make heads or tails of it.
> Seems
> your reasoning is about the same. As in Atma (both
> absolutely conscious and absolutely unconscious) is
> unconscious of space and time? Anyhow - the
> essential unity
> is *larger* than space and time - or infinitely
> smaller. 
> This really goes beyond words, doesn't it?
> 
> katinka
> > From: Steve Stubbs <stevestubbs@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: My Views - to Brigitte
> > 
> > Hi, Katinka:
> > 
> > Space and time are products of consciousness, as
> Kant
> > demonstrated. If atma is unconscious, then it is
> > outside space and time, without any division in
> the
> > eseential unity of things.
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
> > --- Katinka Hesselink
> <katinka_hesselink@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Jerry,
> > > 
> > > Thanks a lot for that. I think it is the
> clearest
> > > explanation of how you see things that I've read
> so
> > > far.
> > > Seems to me you propose a fundamental dichotimy
> > > here.
> > > Something inside space and time (the physical
> world,
> > > among
> > > other things), and something outside it: atma.
> How
> > > do you
> > > combine that with the essential unity of
> everything?
> > > 
> > > Katinka
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting,
> just $8.95/month.
> http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1