Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00660)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Etzion Becker <etvionbb@n...> 
wrote:
> There cannot be any spiritual advancement without the supervision of
> super-consciousness.

Dear Etzion:

Well, yes, it is true that nothing can disprove the existence of the 
supreme personality. However, there are some purely logical 
arguments which may lead to a wrong conclusion and which nonetheless 
make it clear a supreme impersonal reality may be what we find at the 
end of our quest.

I assume you are conscious, so that is prima facie evidence that 
there is consciousness in the universe.

I assume you are also intelligent, so that is prima facie evidence 
that there is intelligence in the universe.

I see your consciousness and intelligence as a manifestation of the 
principle of consciousness and intelligence in the universe.

The argument is complex, but there is good reason to believe that 
consciousness is an integral component of being. I.e., if there is 
no consciousness, then there is also no being. Thus, anything which 
can be said to exist must be endowed with consciousness, however 
elementary it might be.

Empty space would therefore represent total unconsciousness, and 
sensible objects (planets, stars, comets, and the residents thereof) 
would possess some sort of consciousness. That this is so seems to 
be recognized in the Theosophical idea of planetary spirits. 
Logically, one would expect planetary consciousness to be more 
elementary than that of man, but Theosophy asserts that the opposite 
is true. It could be so.

The existence of space and matter in the universe (I think Leucippus 
described these as Being and Not Being) is evidence that 
consciousness and unconsciousness coexist.

Theosophy asserts that unconsciousness (or The Unconscious, to use 
Eduard von Hartmann's terminology) came first and is the supreme 
reality. Since consciousness is phenomenal, unconsciousness 
noumenal, this makes perfect sense to me. One interpretation of 
Einstein's equations is that what we experience as matter is really a 
distortion of the space time continuum, which implies that there had 
to be a space time continuum (unconsciousness) before there could be 
matter (the stc distorted, resulting in consciousness.)

Thus at the beginning of the manvantara (the end of the Maha Pralaya) 
there was "differentiation" in space, resulting in the appearance of 
atoms, which congregated to form planets, etc.

Now suppose that there are personalities much superior to that of 
man, a personality or personalities we would call godlike. This is 
entirely possible or even likely. It would still seem that behind 
the superior personality there must be some noumenal reality of 
unknown nature, just as something must underlie human and animal 
personalities. Such a personality could exist, but the supreme 
reality would be beyond it, and not personal.

As I said, this is logical and could be totally wrong. Nature is not 
obliged to follow logic. Or not mine, anyway.

As for evolution being blind and mechanical, Wallace showed the flaws 
in that theory a century ago. According to Darwin, an Australian 
aborigine should have just enough intelligence to function in a 
pretechnological society. The fact that they have considerably more 
than they need (as do dolphins and other species) is a serious 
problem for classical Darwinian evolution. Schopenhauer pointed out 
that, given that evolving beings are intelligent and have will and 
aspiration, it makes more sense to assume that there is an 
intelligent component to evolution. But where he diverged from the 
Darwinists and the Creationists, was in suggesting that THE 
INTELLIGENCE WHICH GUIDES EVOLUTION IS IN THE EVOLVING BEING ITSELF. 
Thus, to use one of his examples, a deer has antlers because its 
ancestors wanted them.

I would think that if mice were evolved by some intelligence, that 
intelligence must function separately from the intelligence which 
evolved cats to consume them. It makes more sense that there are two 
inelligences (one fr cats and one for mice) which are operating in 
parallel rather than that one master intelligence evolved both of 
them. Of course, it could be that the system is hierarchical, and 
that the Great Cat and the Great Mouse both were evolved by something 
higher up in the hierarchy, but I suspect they evolved separately.

This suggests that evolution may be a bottom up, instead of a top 
down thing. It is also possible that it is a combination. There is 
no way to know for sure what the truth is, but that should give you 
something to wrap your head around for awhile.

If this reasoning is correct, BAG's Vishnu could very well exist, and 
would be very exalted, but not supreme. This would not present a 
problenm to a philosopher but could be such for a devotional mystic. 
Of course in that event the supreme reality would be forever beyond 
us anyway, which is also what Theosophy teaches. The supreme 
reality, whatever it is, is beyond our comprehension or experience, 
whether you are theist or not.

Historically, the idea of the Jewish deity as supreme is a relatively 
modern concept. In Moses' time he was a tribal deity, and one among 
many (other tribes having their own.) For devotional purposes his 
status came to be elevated in time as the consciousness of his 
worshipers evolved.

I hope those ideas are not too elementary. I don't want anyone to 
feel insulted.