Theos-Talk Archives (April 2002 Message tt00012)

Louis,

>From the American Heritage dictionary:

co'ad'u'nate adj. 1. Closely joined; grown together; united. 

>From Merriam Websters Collegiate Thesaurus:

Entry Word: coadunate
Function: vb
Text: Synonyms JOIN 1, associate, coagment, coalesce, connect, link, one, 
relate, unite, wed

The statement "coadunate but not consubstantial" is attributed to HPB who 
used this phrase to describe the transcendent relationships of the seven fold 
fields of consciousness in both the SD and in her other writings on 
metaphysics. 

It refers specifically to both the zero (laya) points which, being 
dimensionless, are all in the same spatial location, or "entangled" (as they 
say in modern physic), as well as to the separate multidimensional fields of 
consciousness which are connected coenergetically through their zero points 
(where their energy rays cross and are transformed, or transmuted, from one 
frequency-energy "phase" or "order" to another). 

The differences in these frequency levels or "spectrum" ranges within the 
Planck distance surrounding each coadunate zero-point, are where the energy 
momenta and frequencies of the two adjoining fields (physical and astral) 
become chaotic and indeterminate due to their frequency and velocity phase 
interference's. That is why -- at the quantum level (the Planck distance of 
approximately 10^-32 cm from the zero-point) -- if the electron position is 
measured, its momentum is indeterminate, and if its momentum is measured its 
position is indeterminate. 

This is because the limit of measurement of the material instrument, or 
"observer", governed by the maximum frequency of electromagnetic waves on the 
physical phase or plane, cannot penetrate beyond the barrier of the Planck 
distance -- where the different frequency spectrums of the coadunate higher 
order energy fields interfere with each other and give chaotic measurements 
that science labels as the "probability" function, and which is wrongly 
interpreted by some shallow thinkers as negating causation and the immutable 
laws governing karma or "action" based on eternal cyclic motion reflected on 
every plane, field, or level of consciousness. Also, according to an 
extension of string theory mathematics, the velocity of astromagnetic light 
waves would have to be the velocity of electromagnetic light squared (C^2)... 
And, is why we can only see such light, internally with our "third eye," as 
"mental images" -- whether awake or dreaming.

All that, incidentally, is also why theosophy can say (irrefutable by either 
science or logic), that the universe is nothing more than consciousness (or 
spirit) in motion, and that physical matter or mass-energy is but one low 
level aspect of a vast (3, 7, 10, 14, etc., fold) expanse of "coadunate but 
not consubstantial" energy fields ranging from the sublime to the gross... 
Or, ranging from the near infinite frequency spectrum of the primal at(o)mic 
field, through the five intermediate fields, to the gross, lower energy phase 
electromagnetic frequency spectrum of the physical, sidereal, or mass-energy 
field. Interestingly, M-brane theorists see the universe in a similar 
manner, and their open or closed "strings" (which, as they say, "vibrate like 
guitar strings of different tensions") are nothing more than the lines of 
primal force or emanative "rays" spoken of in theosophy. 

For a clear symbolic cross sectional picture of how these octaval 
(diatonically intervalic) coadunate fields (and their "chakra" centers or 
individualized zero-points of intersection) multidimensionally involve out of 
the "Absolute" zero point "spinergy" (or "abstract motion")... And, why all 
duality's are each integral or inseparable parts of a "trinity" which, when 
further differentiated, becomes septenary and then centenary -- but always 
remain an interconnected "unity"... See:
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

Hope this helps.

Leon

In a message dated 04/01/02 5:59:38 AM, Teos 9 writes:

>Leon,
>
>I have looked in a couple of online dictionaries for the meaning of this
>term. No listing for this word, is all I get. Could you please enlighten
>me a bit about your intended meaning when you use the word. I get the part
>about consubstantial or not consubstantial, as in: "the same as" or not
>"the same as." However I am at a loss to glimpse, or infer any meaning
>from "coadunate or adunate." Thanks for any help you can give e here.
>
>Louis