Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00322)

Dear Cass, 

I can't comment too much on the quote from Hazrat Inayat Khan's book -- since 
it is written in metaphorical terms... That, while abstractly sensible from a 
spiritual point of view and possibly helpful to his devotees, does not relate 
to my scientifically sound metaphysical view. This view does not consider 
any vacuum or "empty" space that is not "full" of abstract motion, and thus, 
pure force -- as the infinite angular momentum of the zero-point "spinergy" -- 
which, when transformed from abstract to concrete in terms of involved 
coenergetic fields of consciousness, becomes matter or substance. 

Thus, the statement, "Nature abhors a vacuum" is true, as I see it... Since, 
nature is that fullness of physical space we experience around us, and which 
contains no "empty space" other than the absolute zero-point itself -- which is 
the root of pure consciousness -- that is outside of all space and time. 

On the other hand, since the zero-point must be everywhere, we can say that 
the vacuum or "void" (represented by that zero-point) and matter are 
coterminous... And, therefore, the fields of consciousness are coadunate but not 
consubstantial -- being one inside the other ad infinitum. 

Thus, we might also say that Khan's view and my scientific metaphysical view 
are essentially the same -- since we both can conclude (although he speaks of 
it metaphorically, and I explain it in scientific terms, geometrically and 
coenergetically) that the universe is both infinitely divisible and infinitely 
expandable, one and many, empty and full, and that spirit and matter are just 
two opposite sides of the same coin. :-)

As for the imbalance you speak of in the universal field diagrams... For 
simplicity these basic symbolic diagrams only show the positive ray of energy that 
forms the monadic fields of "light" matter. Actually, each ray is dual, 
being projected or radiated simultaneously, clockwise and counterclockwise, in 
opposite directions... Since, they must emanate from the zero-point as positive 
(attractive) and negative (repulsive) rays of energy that ultimately entwine 
parallel to each other as they involve and spirally knit the fractally 
descending monadic fields of consciousness. These fields, in turn, are then both 
positive and negative with respect their individual polarities... And, also, with 
respect to the energy fields that are generated between the entwined parallel 
rays of primal force that carryy the vibrational holographic image patterns 
that constitute the phenomenal intelligence of the Cosmos (that of the Dhyan 
Chohans) -- which intelligence was originally encoded within the primal 
zero-point spinergy prior to manifestation. 

Thus, in later evolutionary processes every particle or wave of positive 
charge must be balanced by an equal and opposite particle or wave of negative 
charge. The only difference being the direction of fundamental spin of the 
central zero-point within the particle or on the wave. Therefore, science speaks of 
both matter and antimatter, electrons and positrons, light matter and dark 
matter, etc. It's not correct, however, to see the descending fields of 
consciousness that form the seven fold nature of both the universe and man, as being 
negative or positive. Each field must not only be in balance internally 
between its negative and positive energies -- but must also have a negative and 
positive polarity that meets at the zero-point juncture between the adjacent 
fields. Therefore, we can say that everything in the universe is connected to 
everything else through their differences in polarity or positive-negative charge 
or magnetic attraction and repulsion, etc., on all seven levels.

One of the confusions that comes about when we speak of a "seven fold" 
nature, is that these "folds" only apply to the polar junctions between the inner 
fields as they descend and enfold within each other. Referring to the 
Chakrafield diagram (which is symbolical only, although geometrically and topologically 
consistent); Actually, we can see that there are eight such inner fields. 
Four above the center point and four below. With the topmost inner chakrafield 
being linked to the highest level (positive pole) of the surrounding spiritual 
(or "ring pass not") field, and the bottom-most field being connected to the 
lowest level (negative pole) of the surrounding field. 

Thus, the six inner fields between them are what constitute our material 
nature (Buddhi to Physical Body) between Atma and the inner world of super dense 
energies at the sub-quantum level. Since that level is below our sensory 
ability to experience directly (and is part of the occult secrets that refer to 
magic processes) -- most theosophical teachers rarely speak about it publicly. 
Actually, we have eight inner natures rather than seven -- which the Buddha 
correctly euphemizes as the "Eight fold path" without revealing any of the 
secrets of the Kriashakti or Kundalini levels of reality [which I won't, either ;-].

I hope some of this helps you get closer to understanding my ABC field 
theory. Actually, the only thing truly abstract in it is the zero-point and its 
spinergy -- since the fields that emanate from that abstract point follow definite 
geographic and topographic paths that are entirely logical (vide, the fractal 
geometry of their internal progression as they return inward from the 
infinite outer rim of the Cosmos to each zero-point center that is everywhere within 
every thing in the Cosmos)... Although, one has to bend one's mind a bit to 
see how the inner dimensions involve as hyperspace fields within fields within 
fields, etc., that are enfolded, invisibly, *inside* the metric physical 
space-time continuum our bodies are in (and also inside our bodies and every cell 
and particle within them, ad infinitum). 

To see all that as one consistent "diversity within a unity" -- puts the man 
inside the big picture, and the big picture inside the man :-)... As above, 
so below. So, swing over and settle down on a comfortable branch between the 
two, peel a banana, take a bite, and contemplate where their umbilical cords 
meet. These pictures may help: 
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/TaiChiFldDiag-figure-2.gif

May you and your family enjoy a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. 

Warm regards and Best wishes, 

Leon Maurer 

In a message dated 12/22/04 2:14:19 AM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:

>
>Dear Leo
>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.
> 
>Cass
>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
>
>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>
>Dear Cass,
>
>The notes on my ABC theory are at: 
>http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
>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.
>
>Best wishes, 
>Leon
>
>
>In a message dated 12/14/04 9:12:33 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:
>
>>Dear Leon
>>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.
>>Many thanks
>>Cass
>>
>LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: