Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00363)

Hi Leon,

Most of what you write goes so far over my head that I would not even 
know where to start with asking questions. The below at least read 
like English - so I could ask some questions. 

> Totally? What do you disagree with? There are at least three 
> separate ideas 
> in that paragraph. You also took it out of context and, 
> presumedly, have no 
> idea what question I was answering, or what statement I was 
> referring to. 

Katinka: 
True enough - as Mauri's posts seem as vague to me as yours do. 
Reading them is usually useless for me. 

> Sorry about that. What don't you understand? Admittedly, my 
> writing is 
> necessarily complex, since I am attempting to write logically, 
about 
> conditions of the Cosmos (from a scientific point of view) and the 
> involutional processes of its field genesis, that are extremely 
difficult to 
> talk about -- since they involve dimensions beyond those that we 
can conceive 
> of in our reasoning mind. Yet, they can be symbolically modeled 
and, with 
> proper mental focus and concentration, intuited in our Buddhi mind.
> 
> To clarify my statement... As you said in another post, "...that 
things can 
> cease to be still been" -- my original statement that 
the "unconditioned 
> reality (while appearing to be "empty") is NOT non existent" -- 
> still stands. 

Katinka:
I agree to the latter. Don't know what you refer to before that. 

> That unconditioned reality is the "foundation of all our life here 
now" and 
> can be reached in our highest consciousness. That is the condition 
of 
> absolute bliss and harmony (Samadhi) when we are completely one 
pointed in 
> awareness and all our seven inner fields have become absorbed in 
> that point. 

Katinka:
agree once again. 

> As for the meaning in the Book of Dzyan, you are confusing 
the "unconditioned 
> reality" we were speaking about, with the Absolute reality. 

Katinka:
Sure - Don't see the difference. How do you see them as different? 
The below gives me an inkling - a feel for the difference in your 
eyes, but the idea is rather new for me. I've always seen them as the 
same, sort of. 

> As Krishna, 
> representing the Absolute (or "all Presence") said, "I create this 
entire 
> universe out of one small part of myself and yet remain 
separate"... 
> Therefore, the "Absolute reality" always remains undiminished and 
unchanged, 
> whether or not the Cosmos is unconditioned and asleep in 
paranishpanna 
> (Cosmic pralaya), or conditioned as the manifest universe (Cosmic 
> manvantara). 

Katinka:
That looks like an interesting definition of unconditioned. But it 
doesn't make any sense to me, though the part about Krishna does. 

> I was only speaking of the latter two states that begin with 
the "Eternal 
> Parent" and her "ever invisible robes" who had "slumbered once 
again for 
> seven eternity's." (Remember, this Cosmos is only one out of an 
infinite 
> number of possible universes.) Therefore, this "Mother" of the 
present Cosmos 
> (or conditioned reality) -- is the "unconditioned reality" that 
cannot be 
> conceptualized, or, as Mauri says, "scientized" -- since it is both 
timeless 
> and formless. (But we can imagine its motion as being a continuous 
spinning 
> of its zero-point, like the center point of the axle of a spinning 
wheel.) 
> Yet, unlike the Absolute, which is ineffable, it is the noumenal 
root of the 
> phenomenal universe, and thus, "exists" in potential, as a sleeping 
force in 
> constant cyclic motion. Its "invisible robes" are the different 
aspects of 
> its total force (or "spinergy") that represents the noumena of the 
ten fold 
> nature (or fields of consciousness) of its initial phenomenal 
manifestation. 
> Seven of these fields are also the robes or energy-mind-bodies of 
the first 
> Dhyan Chohans, or seven degrees of initial consciousness that 
constitute "The 
> Grand Architect of the Universe." 

Katinka:
I'm sure this means something to you, but you lose me with every 
breath. I think if you explain the sentence about unconditioned 
reality being the noumenal root of the phenominal universe - I might 
see it better. That sentence seems to be the core matter of the above 
paragraph. After that you lose me totally. 

> Actually, since every involutional process in the universe can be 
understood 
> by analogy and correspondence ("as above, so below") and follows 
the 
> fundamental laws of cycles and periodicity, the same process of 
Cosmic 
> involution can apply to Solar involution as well as the involution 
of the 
> fields that represent our individual seven fold nature. Therefore, 
my 
> discussion and geometric models describing the scientific basis of 
this 
> involutional process, is quite general in its scope, and has to be 
applied at 
> whatever level of genesis we are considering. 

Katinka:
That makes sense. But since I don't understand what you are saying at 
all - I can't apply it to any level of genesis. 

Rereading the above, with my comments I think it comes down to the 
following question: What do you mean by "the unconditioned"? 

Best wishes,
Katinka

> Best wishes,
> 
> LHM 
> http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
> http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/invlutionflddiagnotate.gif