Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00389)

Friday, March 21, 2003

Dear Friends:

An interesting discussion is herewith reported for consideration:


Friday, March 21, 2003


DTB says:


May I offer the following views on the BHAGAVAD GITA , as I believe
Theosophy offers them?


Krishna as Avatar (Divine Incarnation -- Perfected MAN) acts as the
UNIVERSAL MIND. "He" is in this sense CREATION as an entity, ONE, and
ALL.

The portion that "remains separate" is perhaps this illusive ABSOLUTE
? For HE is also emanated from THAT -- SAT.

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. In periods of
manifestation, it may be called SPIRIT.

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, action 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

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

From: l, who writes:


L: 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"



B	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.")



L 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.



L	"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.



B:	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.



L 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.



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



B	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
millennia.



L	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.

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



B	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.



l	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.


CUT