Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00364)

LHM: 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"

A point for your consideration. If "Krishna" created anything, he 
was active, which we are told the Absolute is not. This might 
therefore refer to the universe as conscious ("manifested" to use 
Blavatsky lingo) instead of the universe as unconscious 
("unmanifested.")

Another point for your consideration: consciousness implies the 
existence of a noumenal reality which preceded consciousness since 
noumenon can exist without phenomenon but not phenomenon without 
noumenon. However, the SD makes it clear some of these ideas precede 
each other in thought but not necessarily in time. So there is that 
subtlety as well. You have picked the most difficult part to 
expostulate upon.

LHM: "Remember, this Cosmos is only one out of an infinite number of 
possible universes.

Which could mean, since all this has to do with consciousness, that 
your universe is different from mine, and not that they are separated 
geographically. That would be the esoteric interpretation, since the 
popular idea is that they are separate in space, as in light millenia.

LHM: "Therefore, this "Mother" of the present Cosmos (or conditioned 
reality) ?? is the "unconditioned reality" that cannot be 
conceptualized

Cannot be presented in sensory terms, to be precise, since sensory 
terms are by definition phenomenal and not noumenal. In more humble 
terms, we cannot visualize it (visual phenomena), imagine what it 
sounds like (auditory phenomena), etc., since phenomena exist only in 
our consciousness and not exterior to ourselves. In recognition of 
that problem English philosopher Henry More said in the seventeenth 
century that it was "absolutely inconceivable" but it turned out in 
the 1920s in Scandinavia that they seem to have solved that problem. 
Quantum mechanics describes reality in terms which are totally 
abstract, the downside being that nobody who lacks a background in 
advanced mathematics can understand what they were saying (the 
popular books on QM are completely worthless, IMO) and those who do 
have such a background, while understanding them, do not know what 
they are talking about. I think it was Ernst Schroedinger who said 
that last comment first, but I am not sure. A completely abstract 
representation of reality is completely non phenomenal (no visual 
images, etc.) and therefore avoids the problem. Then the guy who 
wrote my college text in advanced physics went and drew pictures of 
electron orbitals, the electron in a box problem, and so forth. 
Shocking.

Anyway, equations are conceptualizations. They just are not 
phenomenal representations, which is to say, representations in 
sensory terms, with pictures, sounds, colors, and so on.

LHM: "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.

The problem is, if you imagine anything, you are putting it in visual 
terms, which makes it phenomenal. That is why QM is totally 
abstract. As soon as we draw pictures we change everything.

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@a... wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 03/17/03 5:07:59 AM, mail@k... writes:
> 
> >WOW,
> >
> >There is an actual discussion including content on here! Butting 
in 
> >as usual. Below. 
> >--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@a... wrote:
> >> No. Unconditioned reality is the noumenal state of the Cosmos 
while 
> >> it is resting in Paranishpanna, or asleep in Pralaya. That 
noumenal 
> >> state cannot be "scientized" -- since, in itself, it is 
unexpressed. 
> >> Yet, paradoxically, it is not the "Absolute," since it is a 
force in 
> itself 
> >> that is in eternal motion ("spinergy"). Empty of form, but not 
empty
> >> of potentiality of form. Thus, unconditioned, but not non-
existent. 
> >> Chew on that. :-)
> >
> >Chewing and totally disagreeing, I think.
> 
> 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. 
> Therefore, your following statement, while it may be correct, is a 
non 
> sequitur. In any event, the facts of my statement above are 
exactly what the 
> Secret Doctrine teaches. 
> 
> >I always understood the stanza's to have at least two meanings. 
One 
> >time dependent - as above: the universe was in paranishpanna ages 
> >ago. Now it is not. The fundamental ground of It was there, and 
> >nothing else was.
> >On the other hand (second meaning) - the fundamental ground never 
> >changed, is still there, unconditioned reality is the foundation 
of 
> >all our life here now. And our consciousness can get up (or down) 
to 
> >it. Maybe that is what you were saying - I don't know. I have 
trouble 
> >understanding most of what you write.
> 
> 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. 
> 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. 
> 
> As for the meaning in the Book of Dzyan, you are confusing 
the "unconditioned 
> reality" we were speaking about, with the Absolute reality. 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). 
> 
> 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." 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> LHM 
> http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
> http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/invlutionflddiagnotate.gif