Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00491)

Hi, Gerald:

Thanks as usual for your interesting comments. My
responses below:

Gerald: "Steve, there are several ways in which his
equations of relativity can be interpreted. It can
also be spherical (which would be more in line with
the Big Bang theory). Einstein also demonstrated that
space is curved, so that is one were to travel outward
in a straight path from any position, eventually one
would arrive back where the trip started."

The curvature of space is the rationale for the
statement that the universe is finite.

There is no reason to believe that the distribution of
matter in the universe is such as to produce an ideal
sphere.

Gerald: "His theory about time being relative has
already been proved  time varies with both
speed (Motion) and gravity.

Yes, that it true. The word "velocity" is preferable
in this context to "speed."

Gerald: "It has already been demonstrated that this is
impossible. There simply is no such thing as empty
space. Every vacuum seeths with virtual particles.

The last time I checked, we were not in the middle of
the Maha Pralaya. Also, what is a "virtual" particle?

Gerald: "The need for an object is only true for human
consciousness, which because of its dualistic nature
has to have an object to be conscious of. However,
this duality goes away in nondual
consciousness, which, believe it or not, needs neither
a subject nor an object.

Non!!!dualistic consciousness means that the I!!!sense
(ahamkara) is gone. It does not mean that
consciousness is not intentional.

Gerald: "In dreamless sleep, we are conscious without
an object, and also have no awareness of distances or
other phenomena. When we wake, we conclude that we
were unconscious, or in a coma, because the human mind
(manas) cannot remember anything nor understand such
such a mental state  yet it happens. There
really is no such thing as a state that is without
awareness. We are continuously aware, whether we can
remember it later or not.

Actually, persons who have not practiced yoga
generally do enter an altogether unconscious state in
dreamless sleep. The idea in certain schools of yoga
is to enter this state without losing consciousness,
then pass beyond it to turiya, and then return to the
waking state.

Gerald: "I think that this is Theosophy as well.
Thoughts are phenomenal objects on the mental plane.
At least this is what I have heard.

Yes, you are correct.

Gerald: "Do we really know this about animals? I would
swear that my pets can sometimes read my mind...

Notice I used the phrase "are thought to do." 
Theosophy teaches that they have no manas, an idea
which strikes me as questionable. It is doubtful that
they engage in conscious ratiocination of the sort
engaged in by (some but not all) humans. Many humans
of my acquaintance explicitly reject rational thinking
as an impediment to getting in touch with their
"feelings." I suspect animals do this
non!!!explicitly.

Animals are very good at reading body language, which
is how we do 85% of our communicating anyway, and they
are therefore at no disadvantage for not being verbal.

Gerald: "Yes, and it is called manas. The other five
senses are said to have their own separate
consciousnesses. Buddhists were not aware of the part
played by the brain (nor were any other ancient
culture that I know of).

The insight that mental consciousness is seated in the
brain was known to the ancient Greeks, but I forget
which philosopher it was attributed to. I believe he
was a Pythagorean, though.

It is the seventh "sense" which in Theosophy is
equated to "klichta" (see THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY). 
Anyone will recognize this as the klista manas of the
Yogacara system. All the senses are in Theosophy
assumed to be sub!!!principles of the fourth major
principle, or kama.

According to the theory, the seventh and highest
sub!!!principle of kama would be indistinguishable
from the first and lowest sub!!!principle of manas. 
It is therefore called kama!!!manas. The idea seems
to be that if kama!!!manas is preoccupied with sensory
experience, it is looking down as it were, whereas if
the senses are withdrawn from (Pratyahara) it becomes
possible for the focus of consciousness to be
redirected upward ti buddhi!!!manas, otherwise known
as Upper Manas, or the Higher Ego,

Gerald: "How does one separate mind from
understanding? I thought her sixth sense was the
intuition.

I am merely quoting. Search the on!!!line version of
the SD for the title Anugita.

Gerald: "Space is never empty"

I am positing a condition in which it is impossible to
distinguish between one area of space and another. If
it is impossible to make this distinction, then there
is no consciousness. That is the operational
definition of the word "empty" in this context.

Gerald: "This idea won't work if we assume that a
monad is spaceless and timeless, which is my
assumption. Blavatsky equates a monad with a
mathematical point, which has no actual dimensions in
space, and exists more as an idea than a thing.

The idea that atoms are mathematical points without
extension comes from one of her Russian countrymen, I
think his name was Boscovitch. The concept of a point
without extension was, I believe, also discussed by
Leibniz in his early papers on calculus.

For purposes of discussion I was using the simpler
concept of Leucippus, who thought of atoms as having
extension and who distinguished between where the atom
was not (Not!!!Being) and where the arom was (Being). 
The same points could be made with regard to
Boscovitch atoms, but the language would be more
confusing.

Gerald: Who is it that observes and counts these two
monads?

Kapila, from whom Blavatsky got many of her ideas,
would say it is the Purusha. The word means "Person"
and refers to innumerable discrete souls in his system
which are the centers of consciousness in the
universe. Kapila said that primordial cosmic matter
was formless (avyakta) until observed by Purusha, at
which time it acquired form (became vyakta prakrti.) 
What this refers to, of course, is the
noumenon!!!phenomenon duality referred to earlier. 
Vyakta prakrti exists only in consciousness, and is
therefore phenomenal, whereas noumenal prakrti must
ever be avyakta. My school would say that the One
Mind observes and counts the monads.

Gerald: "I have never come across this in terms of
being and nonbeing in science. I am familiar
with boundarycondition in terms of chaos
versus order, and even in life (complex systems)
versus nonliving matter (simple systems). Is
this what you mean?

I was borrowing a term from science to refer to the
point in space at which an atom a la Leucippus could
be said conceptually to come into existence. In this
case it would be the existence of a boundary
condition, on onr side of which was Not!!!Being (using
Leucippus' terminology) and on the other side of which
would be Being (again using Leucippus' terminology),
which makes it possible for consciousness to come into
existence.

A less esoteric example would be the phenomenon, known
in the part of the world in which I live, known as a
"blue norther." A blue norther is simply a very cold
Arctic wind which comes into contact with, and
displaces, a mass of warmer air. A boundary condition
is set up which refracts light, producing a bluish
tinge. Air is and remains invisible, yet the bluish
tinge is visible. Visual consciousness of the
boundary condition is therefore possible, whereas
visual consciousness of the two air masses is not.

Gerald: "According to a few modern scientists (most
won't go this far), living systems are such because
they occupy a state space that lies in between chaotic
attractors. There is, as yet, no scientific conceptual
model that outlines consciousness, or that can even
take it into consideration. Virtually all scientists
believe that consciousness comes from the neural
networks of the brain, and though they have spent
endless hours and funds they have yet to be able to
model how this can be.

There have been increasingly meaty papers published on
neural network theory, but neural networks are
essentially pattern recognition systems. They are not
consciousness. It is the pattern recognition function
of neural networks which causes you to see a face in
the moon, and angels int he clouds, etc. Neural
networks are going to find patterns whether there are
any to be found or not. But this is a case in which
the illusory nature of phenomena just becomes more
apparent than usual. I have a textbook of
neuroanatomy here which is published by the Columbia
University College of Physicians and Surgeons (be glad
you did not take THIS course because the book weighs
about thirty pounds) and which holds to the
philosophical position that mind is just chemicals. 
But there is a distinction to be made between
philosophical materialism and the empirical method. 
There is no way to prove empirically that materialism
is more true than an alternative position. The
connection between the two comes from the nineteenth
century war between empiricists and the Christians and
has no relevance to the twenty first century IMHO.

Gerald: "Yes, he does use that term. This idea can be
found in the Mind Only school of Buddhism, where it is
taught as a conventional truth. But is thoroughly
refuted in the Middle Way school. According to the
Middle Way school, it does not even exist
conventionally. (reference Paul Williams' THE
REFLEXIVE NATURE OF AWARENESS). 

I was explicating Blavatsky, who rejected the
Madhyamika theory and held to a modified version of
the Yogacara.

Gerald: "Unconsciousness is a ground only in
psychology. Why? Because when the human mind focuses
on something, then everything else is said to be
unconscious to it. This is only so for our dualistic
manas consciousness. I would much rather think that
the ultimate Ground of everything is pure
consciousness, a nondual awareness. using this
focusing analogy, if human manas is the light from a
flashlight (ie a directed or focused light) then think
of the monad as being a light bulb radiating its light
in all directions  and of course the anaolgy
that has been used most throughout the ages is the sun
which radiates light continuously in all directions.

It was Blavatsky who equated her Absolute with the
Unconscious of Eduard von Hartmann. What I am trying
to do is explain what Blavatsky thought, the same way
I would explain Aristotle or Heidegger, without
reference to whether or not I personally agree or
disagree. She would have agreed that the Unconscious
is the Ground of all things, and that Parabrahman is
unconscious.

My compliments. Your comments and questions are
unusually intelligent and insightful.

Steve

--- Gerald Schueler <gschueler@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <<<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.>>>
> 
> Steve, there are several ways in which his equations
> of relativity can be interpreted. It can also be
> spherical (which would be more in line with the Big
> Bang theory). Einstein also demonstrated that space
> is curved, so that is one were to travel outward in
> a straight path from any position, eventually one
> would arrive back where the trip started. His theory
> about time being relative has already been proved -
> time varies with both speed (Motion) and gravity.
> 
> 
> <<<Now suppose that space is completely empty.>>>
> 
> It has already been demonstrated that this is
> impossible. There simply is no such thing as empty
> space. Every vacuum seeths with virtual particles.
> 
> 
> <<<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. >>>>
> 
> The need for an object is only true for human
> consciousness, which because of its dualistic nature
> has to have an object to be conscious of. However,
> this duality goes away in non-dual consciousness,
> which, believe it or not, needs neither a subject
> nor an object. 
> 
> 
> <<< 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). >>>>
> 
> Right. In dreamless sleep, we are conscious without
> an object, and also have no awareness of distances
> or other phenomena. When we wake, we conclude that
> we were unconscious, or in a coma, because the human
> mind (manas) cannot remember anything nor understand
> such such a mental state - yet it happens. There
> really is no such thing as a state that is without
> awareness. We are continuously aware, whether we can
> remember it later or not.
> 
> 
> <<<In Eastern philosophy, thoughts can be
> objects of consciousness just as phenomenal
> representations of external objects can be objects
> of
> consciousness.>>>
> 
> I think that this is Theosophy as well. Thoughts are
> phenomenal objects on the mental plane. At least
> this is what I have heard.
> 
> 
> <<< 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. >>>
> 
> Do we really know this about animals? I would swear
> that my pets can sometimes read my mind...
> 
> 
> <<< In the Buddhist systems, mind, or consciousness
> of mental contents, is the sixth sense. >>>
> 
> Yes, and it is called manas. The other five senses
> are said to have their own separate consciousnesses.
> Buddhists were not aware of the part played by the
> brain (nor were any other ancient culture that I
> know of).
> 
> 
> <<<In the Anugita, as HPB points out, mind and
> understanding are the sixth and the seventh
> senses.>>>
> 
> How does one separate mind from understanding? I
> thought her sixth sense was the intuition.
> 
> 
> <<<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.>>>>
> 
> I would take this as poetry rather than science.
> Space is never empty, even though it may seem to be.
> And being consciously aware of space and its
> formlessness doesn't need praylaya, one can
> experience this in meditation right now. This idea
> can also be found in the Kalachakratantra of
> Buddhism where space in Maha-Praylaya is said to
> contain "space-particles" which become the karmic
> building-blocks of the next manvantara.
> 
> 
> <<< 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).
> >>>
> 
> This idea won't work if we assume that a monad is
> spaceless and timeless, which is my assumption.
> Blavatsky equates a monad with a mathematical point,
> which has no actual dimensions in space, and exists
> more as an idea than a thing. Who is it that
> observes and counts these two monads?
> 
> 
> 
> <<< 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. >>>
> 
> I have never come across this in terms of being and
> non-being in science. I am familiar with
> boundary-condition in terms of chaos versus order,
> and even in life (complex systems) versus non-living
> matter (simple systems). Is this what you mean?
> 
> 
> <<< 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.">>>
> 
> According to a few modern scientists (most won't go
> this far), living systems are such because they
> occupy a state space that lies in between chaotic
> attractors. There is, as yet, no scientific
> conceptual model that outlines consciousness, or
> that can even take it into consideration. Virtually
> all scientists believe that consciousness comes from
> the neural networks of the brain, and though they
> have spent endless hours and funds they have yet to
> be able to model how this can be.
> 
> 
> <<<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.>>>>
> 
> Yes, he does use that term. This idea can be found
> in the Mind Only school of Buddhism, where it is
> taught as a conventional truth. But is thoroughly
> refuted in the Middle Way school. According to the
> Middle Way school, it does not even exist
> conventionally. (reference Paul Williams' THE
> REFLEXIVE NATURE OF AWARENESS). 
> 
> 
> <<< We experience time and space phenomenally (in
> consciousness) even though these experiences do not
> represent anything external to ourselves
> (noumena.)>>
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> <<<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.>>>
> 
> Unconsciousness is a ground only in psychology. Why?
> Because when the human mind focuses on something,
> then everything else is said to be unconscious to
> it. This is only so for our dualistic manas
> consciousness. I would much rather think that the
> ultimate 
=== message truncated ===


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