Re: Theos-World Re: fractal evolution
Dec 21, 2004 10:11 PM
by Cass Silva
As dense as I am, I am slowly trying to assimilate your work, it is very abstract and my constructive (non-abstract) mind keeps jumping between the big picture to the man in the picture. My friend once told me I was like a monkey that keeps swinging from tree to tree, and she was very accurate. Anyway, I have been reading Hazrat Inayat Khan, "The Divinity of the Human Soul" Volume X11, Chapters XI-XIII. It is very interesting if you could get a chance to read it. Here is a paragraph.
"But what is most interesting is the study of spirit and matter is the nature of vacuum and substance. Substance has a tendency to add substance to itself and to turn all that it attracts into the sam substance, and vacuum has a tendency to make a greater vacuum. This shows that there is a continual struggle between substance and vacuum. Where vacuum can get hold of substance it will turn the substance into vacuum, and where substance is stronger it will turn out vacuum and make substance. The idea behind this is not what we might think. We think of vacuum as being nothing; we rcognize vacuum by contrasting it with substance, but in reality substance has arisen from vacuum; vacuum is the womb of substance. Substance has been composed in vacuum and has developed in it; it has formed itself, it has constructed itself, and it will again be dissolved in the vaccum. There can be no form without a vacuum, visible or invisible (CS; THERE GOES NATURE ABHORS A VACUUM THEORY!).
Everywhere there is a vacuum, and we cannot recognize as a vacuum that which our eyes cannot see.
The difference between the nature of vacuum and the nature of substance is that vacuum is knowing. In the mineral kingdom the stone is dense; the reason is that it has little vacuum. Animals and birds show greater signs of life and a more pronounced knowing quality because the vacuum in them is greater still; and in man it is even more so. What makes one part of substance knowing and keeps another part without this faculty of knowing is the vacuum in one object and the denseness in another.
There is a third thing, we should understand concerning this subject which is of great importance: that which stands between vacuum and substance is capacity. When we look at the sky we feel that it is a vacuum; it seems to be nothing, but in reality it is not nothing, it is capacity. Vacuum-is all-knowing, but it is capacity which enables vacuum to know....There is nothing in this world, whether a stone, a tree, a mountain or a river, water or fire, earth, air anything, which is not in itself a capacity; it cannot exist withou being a capacity.
Among Sufis there is a spiritual culture, a culture which recognizes four centres, each centre being a vacuum, or a capacity, for pure intelligence to function in. This shows that man has the greatest possibility of knowing all that is knowable, and he has an even greater capacity than that: to realize all that can be known. If he only knew how he could achieve it! But, one may say, why must substance coming from vacuum learn to know, when vacuum is already the all-knowing state? The all-knowin state is not the same as a limited knowing state....
The whole of manifestation may thus be regarded as a continual conflict between spirit and matter; the spirit developing into matter on the one hand and assimilating matter on the other.
What is absorbed from space has the effect upon that which absorbs it of opening it up and of forming a vacuum. (gives example of plant life absorbing more signs of life (intelligence) by absorbing more from space.
Where there is a hole this hole has a tendency to become larger, and where there is a little substance there is a tendency for that substance to increase; this shows the tendencies of spirit and matter, the continual conflict that exists between spirit and matter. On the one part of matter there is always a tendency to absorb, and on the part of spirit there is always a tendency to assimilate.
The difference between what we call an object and a living being is the difference in the degree of spirit they absorb.
The question arises why, if spirit and matter are one and the same, is there then a need for anything or anyone to absorb spirit? Matter is something which is ever changing; it is continually going through a process of change; and we call this change destruction or death, or we say of matter that it is decomposed or destroyed. In reality it has taken another form, but this form is also changed by spirit and made into something else. (gives example of coal into diamond)
What is consciousness? Consciousness is the knowing faculty, but it is the knowing faculty when it has some knowledge; it is only then that we call it consciousness. One is conscious of something; consciousness must always be conscious of something. When consciousness is not conscious of anything it is pure intelligence. It is in this realization that the greatest secret of life can be revealed.
p.s. have been looking at your diagrams, and was wondering about the zero laya point not being in balance as it differentiates (uncoils) to form the Upper 3 and the Lower 4 planes of consciousness. I don't really know what I am trying to say here, but if the zero lay point was central, then shouldnt it uncoil from 3.5? maintaining a balance or tension of positive negative fields?
Anyway lots of ho ho ho to yourself and family this Christmas
The notes on my ABC theory are at:
Some of the reference illustrations are listed below in my previous
commentary appended here.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about them, or hear any
comments or suggestions you might make.
In a message dated 12/14/04 9:12:33 PM, email@example.com writes:
>I am very happy for you to share my ruminations with anyone. Your reply
>is fascinating and I am now going to print and read it quietly, in the
>sun, on my back verandah. Could you please resend me your website on your
>ABC Theory so that I can look at it in this new light.
Your observations about the relationship that String theory has to theosophy
is right on the nose. For a "non scientist," I admire your perceptive
understanding and integration of such erudite subjects.
However, my scientific juices have been stimulated long before string
theories came along -- ever since I first read and understood Einstein's
relativity when I was 12 years old, and my father, who was an alchemist,
professional chemist, and 33rd degree Mason, explained it to me. :-) As it
been studying String theory, and have read Greene's book as well as all the
other literature referring to Superstring/M-brane theories (now M theory) --
since I first came up with the ABC theory sometime in the late 60's -- before
any scientist published anything about it.
The development of the ABC theory was (besides what "mysteries" my dad
introduced me to when very young) the culmination of over 20 years of study
the ancient mystical and occult literature referenced in the SD, as well as
later writers, from Leadbeater, to Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Crowley, among many
others -- coupled with a serious study of relativity and quantum theories
the late 30's (along with a fortunate encounter, and over five years of
teaching during the late 70s and early 80s, from an "Adept" Tibetan Lama who
was also a nuclear physicist that, before his initiation, worked on the
I was also inspired when I realized in the 70s that Einstein got his idea of
E=mc^2 directly from the Secret Doctrine (which, I later found, was given him
by Robert Millikan when he was in his late teens or early twenties). See:
If you examine what I've written on the ABC theory (check the Theos-World or
theos-talk, and Brain-Mind archives, as well as my ABC website) you'll see
that ABC -- which is identical to the metaphysics hidden in the Secret
(under metaphors and symbols, as well as "in and around the words and between
the lines" as HPB advised her "intuitive students' to study her writing) --
exactly conforms with the latest developments in M-theory -- which,
is the spin-off of Superstring theory that merges all the former string
theories (of which there were five).
In the ABC theory, if you follow the origin of the universal fields out of
the zero-point surrounded by its "spinergy" and examine the meditations on
-- you will understand that the continuous lines of primal force that form
the entire set of fractally involved fields or "globes," are the
(which vary in frequency-energy from globe to globe) -- while the woven
surfaces of the globes are the "M(em)branes."
Actually, the scientists have much of it wrong -- since they still refuse to
consider consciousness as the function of the zero-point itself, or that the
"multiple" or "parallel" universes that can form from the infinite (yet
non-dimensional, thus abstract) polar directions of their circling spinergy
(abstract motion) -- must follow the same fundamental laws of physics based
initial cyclic periodicity of the "spinergy" around each pole. :-) Their
trouble is that they rely on their contrived mathematics to explain the
their "hyperspace" fields -- but make their interpretations of the apparent
separation between the different Membranes based on a false presumption that
consciousness is caused by (or an epiphenomena of) the physical universe, and
that there is no connection between the zero-points -- that, actually, are
everywhere. Didn't the ancient mystic philosophers and theosophy say, "The
of the universe is everywhere and its circumference nowhere?" And, isn't it
obvious that all the Superstrings of force around each globe are connected to
each other through their zero-point centers -- which, wherever they are
in this 3-D physical space-time continuum, are also at the center of the
universe, and therefore, must be in direct communion with the Absolute primal
itself? The symbolic (continuous, spiral vortex 2-D fractal diagram) of these
multidimensional fields within fields, etc., enables one to clearly visualize
this. See: http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif
My interconnected geometric-topological view (without relying on complex
multidimensional mathematical symbology) of the inner fractal nature of the
fields, therefore, is much closer to the actual reality. BTW, this is the
"Super-symmetry" as well as the basis of the "graviton" they are looking for
the wrong places :-). In addition, ABC goes much further, since it not only
synthesizes relativity and quantum theories, but also explains all psychic
phenomena, as well as the genetic biology and physiology of all life forms --
besides completely vindicating all theosophical teachings about the seven
nature of our being, as well as the basis of both karma and reincarnation --
irrevocable facts of nature.
If you can imagine these "Superstrings" as dual (positive and negative) lines
of force that wind spirally (like a DNA molecule) as they weave (actually,
knit) the globes, you can understand that their cyclic vibrations -- whose
meet between them (like the "bases" between the spiral strings of the DNA) --
are the fundamental "strings" that form the basis of all the physical
"elements" or fundamental particles (such as electrons, photons, quarks, sub
etc. -- ad infinitum). Since all the descending fields are "coadunate but not
consubstantial," these vibrational patterns are replicated (inductively and
resonantly) on each fractal level (although at different phase orders of
frequency-energy spectrums). Thus, we can understand how the holographic
of "forms" on the astral body level determines the forms of the physical
("as above, so below")... And, why the vibrational memory of all the actions
and forms on all the multidimensional globes ends up in the "spinergy" --
forms the basis of the next universal (Manvantara) cycle -- after this one
goes to sleep when all its energy entropically winds down.
You are correct when you say that the current developments in M-theory is
getting closer and closer to HPB's metaphysics. Once, these scientists
the connection between the zero-points of consciousness with their hyperspace
fields, they will finally completely vindicate HPB and her Masters -- who
all about this countless ages ago. Let's hope that happens soon, and all
people realize these truths, before their current materialism, greed and
selfishness brings this whole world down around our ears, everything resolves
chaos -- and evolution is set back another million years... (As HPB warned
might happen if theosophical knowledge, and the truths of karma and
isn't imbedded in everyone's minds before this century is half over.) So
let's hope for the best, and keep on plugging away trying to "spread
these truths as far and wide as possible.
Best wishes and warm regards,
P.S. Let me know if you mind my posting this letter to the theosophical and
consciousness study forums.
In a message dated 12/13/04 7:18:05 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
>Saw a show on TV yesterday called the Elegant Universe hosted by physicist
>Brian Greene. It spoke about a new theory called The String Theory, now
>called the M (Magic,Mystery,Matrix) Theory by Ed Whitten, who they claim
>is the foremost physicist in the USA.
>Basically it stated that the laws relating to the Theory of Relativity
>and the laws of Quantum Mechanics are conflicting, and that the holy grail
>of physics is to find one single theory that governs everything.
>Gabrielle Veneziano in 1968, while looking for a clue to explore the "glue"
>that bind the protons together found an equation in an old book which showed
>that particles of the atoms are not points but strings, that strings vibrate
>and dance at different rates and produce different patterns (life forms?)
>It also said that strings need move in more than 3 dimensions and that
>we are living on a membrane (string stretched) inside our three dimension
>and parallel with a higher dimension .
>The string theorists are saying that besides our 3 dimensions plus time,
>there are another 6 dimensions, or degrees of freedom that the membrane
>is part of. A 3 dimensional membrane that floats on a parallel universe
>and that parallel universes are ruled by different laws of physics.
>They are still searching for the Graviton (the gravity factor) and something
>called Super Symmetry,
>Anyway, as a non scientist, it sounded a lot like Theosophy, and in Occult
>Chemistry by Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater I saw diagrams of what
>look like strings?
>I hope this stimulates your scientific juices as it certainly made me feel
>that science is coming closer and closer to what HPB said 100 years ago.
Yahoo! Groups Links
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application