Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00388)

Friday, March 21, 2003

Dear Friends

Krishna as Avatar acts as the UNIVERSAL MIND. He is in this sense
CREATION as an entity, ONE.

The portion that "remains separate" is perhaps this illusive ABSOLUTE
?

But also he say that of all mankind he is the best and highest:
ARJUNA. We, as humans, are all
Arjunas Innate in us is every potency of the whole universe including
the ONE SOURCE : The ABSOLUTE.

Every being, without exception is included in this ABSOLUTE as it is
in the eternal PRESERVER ( Maha-Vishnu, or Krishna ).

In this sense universal brotherhood is declared, and demonstrated to
be a fact.

-------------------------

The Absolute includes activity and non activity, consciousness and
unconsciousness, activity and passivity, duration and time as measured
in finite situations, awareness and indifference, past-present-future
as indistinguishable,

-----------------------

Is it not because we as MINDS with unlimited powers to perceive and to
intuit can actually exist and do this at will demonstrate the intimate
and constant connection between the temporary form and its gross
instrumentation with the imponderable and indescribable oneness and
wholeness of the ABSOLUTE ?


Best wishes

Dallas

-----Original Message-----
From: leonmaurer@aol.com [mailto:leonmaurer@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 1:05 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: re scientizing, Leon, speculation, and
...


In a message dated 03/18/03 9:21:49 PM, stevestubbs@yahoo.com writes:

>>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"
>
>SS: 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.")
>
Point well taken. But, who told you the Absolute is not active?
Blavatsky
said that motion can never cease, and the Absolute reality has to have
motion
as its fundamental basis -- in order, as I see it, to justify the
fundamental
laws of cycles and periodicity. Conscious or unconscious only refers
to
living organisms that are either awake, asleep or under narcosis. But
that
deep sleep is when we are truly in spirit -- which is Absolute (or
potential)
consciousness. It's difficult to distinguish between human
consciousness
(which we should call awareness) and Absolute Consciousness or
Spirit --
which is everywhere -- latent or potent, awake or asleep, aware or
unaware...
But, nevertheless, always there. A particular field of consciousness
can
emanate from that zero-point and be potentially conscious -- but not
aware of
its consciousness before it involves, at least, into its triune monad.

"Creation" is simply the expression of that abstract motion of the
Absolute
(which can only be considered as spin of a zero-point) -- the moment
that
nonlinear angular force of spin emanates and expands into a linear
monadic
field of universal radiant energy. Without that first step, there
cannot be
any universes, conditioned realities or expressed consciousness.
Krishna (as
father-mother) is just the personification of that Absolute Space --
consisting of an infinitude of zero-points that, by the force of their
own
nature, create a myriad of separate universes -- without in any way
diminishing the infinitude of Krishna him/herself... Who is Absolute
Consciousness forever unmanifest. And, simply, a potentiality of
infinite
possibilities dependent on its fundamental laws of zero-point rooted.
infinite "spinergy" along with the infinite information it carries in
its
infinite velocities or frequencies on its infinite numbers of axes.

>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.

Yes, the problem of time reverts back to the spinergy itself -- which,
while
carrying all the information later extended in linear time, is
actually in
infinite duration -- since its angular spin velocities range through
infinite
frequencies on infinite axes, and thus, its time constant is zero.
The
difficulty is trying to explain this in verbal terms that can be
comprehended
intuitively. But, for myself, I can imaging such an infinitesimal
point and
such infinite spins, and therefore can understand that the future,
present
and past, written in the encoded patterns of such spins are the sum of
the
zero-point moment in non linear unconditioned time, but become spread
out
linearly after manifestation in conditional time. Therefore, the
initial
emanation into conditioned fields of consciousness, occur
instantaneously.
It follows that what we think of as past, present and future, are all
compressed in that ultimate moment of initial expansion from the
zero-point
spinergy of unconditioned reality into the fully manifest conditioned
reality. Thus, each passing moment of "now" always contains the sum
of the
past present and future -- which we can only think of as one preceding
the
other. However, they are actually coincidental.

>> 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.

I don't understand what you mean. You are still confusing individual
consciousness as a potentiality of spirit -- with awareness.
Certainly, I
cannot be conscious or aware of what you see in your mind's eye. What
I am
talking about is the Conscious universe or the Spirit of Brahma, of
which
each of our inherent spiritual consciousness is a reflection of --
whether we
are awake or sleeping, aware or unaware. As for "consciousness" or
"unconsciousness" as spoken of by the cognitive psychologists and
anesthesiologists (and what I think you are referring to) -- that's a
horse
of another color. What they really mean is awareness and unawareness.
Consciousness in my discussion has nothing to do with that, but is
just
another way of considering Spirit as opposed to Matter. Thus, this
"Consciousness" or ability to perceive, is the inherent nature and
function
of the zero-point -- which is everywhere. While the phenomenal
"consciousness" you speak of, is dependent on the functioning of the
brain,
the focussing of our attention, or the utilization of our imagination.

>>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.

All very true. But I am not thinking about consciousness in sensory
terms.
When one is in Samadhi or bliss consciousness, one's entire sensory
system is
completely shut down. When I experienced an ADS, some 40 years ago,
my
visual perception was outside of my body and looking down at it from
above.
And, I could not have been using any of my physical senses. At the
time, I
had not yet formulated my ABC theory, or completely understood the SD,
and I
was completely shocked to see the blue pallor of my own face from
outside
while watching my partner attempting to resuscitate me. As a trained
scientific observer, that experience was enough to turn me away from
reductive science and toward digging deeper into occult metaphysical
theories
-- especially after I found out that Einstein probably intuited E=mc^2
from
reading the SD.

That's why quantum physicists, neuroscientists, cognitive
psychologists,
roboticists, AI computerists, or other reductive physical
scientists -- will
never get a handle on what consciousness really is, or how it works,
or what
aspect of the universe makes it possible. Nor will they ever solve
the
conundrum of whence came life? Explain the nature of the experience of
consciousness? The non-locality of consciousness? Nor the binding of
mind and
brain? (Please substitute "awareness" or "perception" for all those
consciousness' -- which the mainstream scientists keep insisting on
confusing.:-)

>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.

Right. That's why I only use visual symbolic diagrams, and focus my
ABC study
of consciousness on the visual processes which can deal directly with
radiant
energy in directly perceptible, coenergetic spherical fields within
fields
within fields that correlate with multidimensional hyperspace
Superstring/M-brane theories and their topological and fractal space
mathematics.

>>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.

Human consciousness (or, at least, the processes between sensing and
perception) is definitely phenomenal. But, even in quantum physics,
diagrams
are helpful. e.g., The best way we can understand quantum
chromodynamics is
to see it pictured in Feynman diagrams. The diagrams change nothing,
but
simply clarify or concept of the reality a bit better.

My ABC theory is thus focussed on the fields and their coenergetic
holographic processes -- that considers sensory information
transformation
and transfer (after the neural electrochemical transduction), as
solely field
effects having to do with their electrical wave nature. Thus, the
mental
visual image occurs in the Planck zero-point "vacuum" space after the
brain
does the preliminary processing and generates its holographic
electrical
field that is resonantly and inductively coenergetic with the
sub-quantum
zero-point fields. Quantum physics, thus gets left far behind.
(Although
Bohm's and Pribam's interpretations come pretty close when combined
with
Superstring/M-brane theory.)

As far as I'm concerned, the study of consciousness (as perception) is
strictly a problem of electricity and geometry and has nothing much to
do
with quantum gravity or particle-wave theories -- which are looking in
the
diametrically opposite direction. Even M-brane theory may be wrong in
considering the zero-point fields as enfolded within the metric
fields...
Since, in my view it is just the opposite... With the metric fields
enfolded
within the higher order frequency phased hyperspace fields (of 10
dimensions)
which permeate the vacuum between all the quantum particles (as a
continuous
plenum that extends out to the full diameter of the gravitational
field on
the macrocosmic level)... Surrounds the human body on the microcosmic
level... As well as each cell or organ at yet smaller dimensions...
Down to
each particle on the quantum level. The fact that each of these
fractal
series of hyperspace fields have their own zero-point centers, it
accounts
for the non locality of consciousness. e.g., We feel the pain at the
point of
trauma, we smell in the nose, see in the eyes, hear in the ears, taste
on the
tongue, etc., and we locate distances and directions of image or sound
by
differential triangulation of wave interference patterns, etc.

Best wishes,

LHM

http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.ht
ml
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/evolution2.htm
l
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/invlutionflddiagnotate.gif
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/