Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00248)

Hi Cass, (Sorry my last letter went out accidentally just as I started to 
reread and see what I had written off the top of my head just before the 
computer crashed. :-) 

I think your comprehension here of what he is saying is as good as we can 
get. Apparently, the whole purpose of his writing was to get people to think 
about the unthinkable. But he is also saying we can't really make any models, 
since our finite minds, conditioned by particulate matter we are rooted in, 
can't really comprehend the infinite complexities of such holographic imagery's -- 
that are purely energetic and are formed by a conscious thought in the 
universal mind, that we, as the observer of only a small part of it, can't observe 
from outside of ourselves -- but maybe can by looking within (from within, 
perhaps, if we can imagine that). Thus, we can only speak about it in metaphorical 
terms, like Alice in Wonderland. In any event, when we do comprehend its 
mystification without being able to explain it, perhaps that's the higher self 
asserting itself. 
Leon 

In a message dated 01/09/05 7:31:23 AM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:

>
>Hi Leon,
>So part of what he is saying is that he (the Kiwi, sorry cant remember
>his name) was born with the Higher Self running the show. That when this
>happens, the personality is disassociated, and is, if you like, a hologram,
>to experience life in the world. But there is "something else", over
>and beyond the personal "I" that is directing the life of the hologram
>in him. "Something" is running the show, not the personalities ego, which,
>in most of us, is all we know, but a something which is almost like the
>programmer for the Hologram. Which leads to a natural progession to,
>"are we the multitudeneous holograms of the Absolute"? Something the 
absolute
>sends out to experience life for itself, because as an absolute, it doesnt
>have the vehicle to experience itself as itself.?"
>Very interesting stuff, because I keep waiting for the Higher Self to assert
>itself, but to no avail.
>Cass
>
>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>
>I felt this excerpt from a letter to me by a thoughtful philosopher and
>
>author* -- in response to my answer to his question about what was the
>general 
>response by scientists and philosophers to my Astro Biological Coenergetics
>web 
>site and postings -- would be of specific interest to students of occult
>
>metaphysics or theosophical science, and other wonderers of what is truth?
>I hope it gives us much food for thought. I know it did for me. :-)
>Len 
>* http://www.awakenedperceptions.com/Adrian'sBkg.html
>http://www.awakenedperceptions.com/Adrian'sBk.p1.html
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>From: adrian van der meijden adrf@orcon.net.nz
>To: leonmaurer@aol.com
>
>Thanks, I suspected as much, but, as usual, want to be sure, or 
>
>something. And Oh, Yes, All I get is silence too, but they listen 
>
>allright. One may detect it by certain rhetorical shifts in emphasis.
>
>"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence. ~ Charles De Gaulle
>
>
>~ which is how he and them think, etc blahh, hahah.
>
>
>There's some interesting stuff you might like on: and more on trufax.org
>
>
>Handbook for the New Paradigm 
>
>http://www.futuredynamicadvantage.com/newparadigm/paradigmvol1.html
>
>http://www.futuredynamicadvantage.com/newparadigm/paradigmvol2.html
>
>There's now also a vol 3 out. dd 2003.
>
>
>I'm still worming my way through this as a second reading reveals more
>
>
>stuff between the lines.
>
>
>May I present you with one of my burbles to Karl Jaspers Forum, run 
>
>by Herbert Muller where academics are still playing gods to the 
>
>illiterate hoi polloi. Might give you a good laugh. HM has the fondness
>
>
>when stuck in a corner, as I regularly do to him, to use foreign 
>
>languages and words he imagines us folks don't understand. BTW I've not
>
>
>read Rilke either, don't need to.
>
>
>THE IN-VERSE"
>
>
>With ALL eyes sees the Creature openness.
>
>Only OUR eyes are As[IF] turned about,
>
>and quite around Them placed, like waterfalls
>
>ensphered, inhibits their free doings.
>
>
>==My rendition of a verse from Rilke in German
>
>
><1>
>
>We should be quite careful in rendering languages, f.i. German, insists
>
>on particles where English allows more of the dynamic ambient or
>
>gerundial. The only model we can use here is the astral where such
>
>things do happen, for which see Robert Monroe and many others. Rilke
>
>calls us creature, as in creative & created and not Mensch. "our" makes
>
>clear he could have written 'Mankind's eyes', but that would ruin the
>
>metre and rhythm as well as the conjointness. In 3-D 'surround' would be
>
>Spherical as for feng shui and astrology, which hails back to medieval
>
>medallion mapping and older. It is like waterfalls because the aura is
>
>conventionally rendered in single colours, where in effect they
>
>coruscate and interlace quite dynamically, in quite unearthly colours.
>
>Rilke is a mystic and to mundanise him into the linear quite distorts
>
>the ideas he expresses. 'Umgekehrt' is as for the Looking Glass, a
>
>topological inversion rather, not a linear one. Dalton's atom is a
>
>reasonable model of the interlacings, all done in spirals or Fibonacci
>
>modelling.
>
>
><2>
>
>In a spherical & topological sense this inversion comes, as from a
>
>centre, in many symmetries and for each an enantiodromic asymmetry,
>
>which for the astral is many dimensions as 360 x 350 x 360 by degrees =
>
>some 46 million "dimensions" or directions, let alone including minutes
>
>and less. For this we can aver to the Sepher Yetsirah [The book of the
>
>Points, Mantua, 1612 AD] where there are points within points and points
>
>without points, and each point being "free" or open to the East, West,
>
>South, North and centre and circumference, not unlike Ezekiel's wheels
>
>within wheels. It is perhaps best imaged as like a flower exfoliating
>
>from a bud or a body from an egg and plant from seed. Chladni figures
>
>and after are relevant here. The astral, using the word best known,
>
>comes as phenomenal for the psychic and unformed or void and formless in
>
>the mystical where alone we can "see" its infinite potential, which to
>
>actualise is quite something different again. Con-text as surrounding is
>
>best rendered as IN-text here since in the astral any there is always
>
>here, as made clear by the Red Queen to Alice whom she tells that merely
>
>to stay "here" one has to move faster than light. Alan Aspect's research
>
>here reveals telepathic contact between particles because they are only
>
>particles in 3-D illusory land. It is rendered graphically to assist our
>
>physical senses although it is a quite aniconic *flux*. Dynamic flow
>
>process cannot be rendered in images. In the astral unprepared visitants
>
>make the raw experient (1) try to dive back into the body, (2) fancy he
>
>is going crazy, where in effect he is going sane. This happens when we
>
>live IN fear and suffer from expectations, if not silly hopes.
>
>
><3>
>
>The best current model for all this is the hologram. The reader may
>
>google "hologram" and spend a few interesting hours. We see a pixel in
>
>an unprojected holograph but this is false since every such "dot"
>
>contains the information OF [not ABOUT] its wholeness and its wholeness
>
>also about every part. The Information is infoliately spread everywhere
>
>and exfoliately a hologram; all at once and together. We have not got
>
>into multi-frequential holograms yet, but we will. A first sound
>
>hologram has been made. An old saw has it that: the ALL is in the all
>
>and the all in the ALL; Whence to speak linearly of an inverse for
>
>umgekehrt is quite false and too limiting. The action is as from an
>
>always *here" - and NOW - as our experiential focus, but as we change
>
>the in-text the ex-texts change their demeanour. Neither the here nor
>
>now are quantifiably limited except by our choices. It is not the ego
>
>thought i/c for the Intellect's word factory, but Freud's ID he feared
>
>so much where experience turns about the UN-conscious into a
>
>super-conscious, where at higher levels of the mystical one *knows* the
>
>relation between what is projected as a seed of our hologram, which
>
>again, experience can learn to choose. This is shown in Dante's Divine
>
>Comedy, when we change from being subject to the material senses in
>
>Purgatory and Hell, to DO-ing this in our own right, so to speak, as a
>
>co-partner of God's Thoughtings. To reach the heights search the depth,
>
>after which, the journey completed we are and know beyond good and evil.
>
>Deus diavolus inversus est, also implies diavolus depends on god's
>
>grace, to be the Father of Lies. Tibetan Yoga is quite emphatic that we
>
>learn the gods - archetypes - both good and evil - are but our
>
>projections, indeed of our multifarious potentials. Again here we have
>
>the Lama who can do this and the Geshe who just knows about it. Lamas
>
>don't teach, Geshes do; at least not until you've grown out some. Geshes
>
>are more verbally dynamic and flexible, as was Carroll's Father William.
>
>
><3>
>
>Thus from a centre, that is but a spark of The Univeral mindings, we get
>
>both an individual centre AND a collective which together with this IT
>
>[IN-tell_ i_gence Transcendent] are enabled to act when this is in
>
>harmony, which comes as for the individual, the collective AND
>
>[inclusive] IT. "in the beginning is the thought, and the thought was
>
>with god and the thought was god, all at once and together OR ISOLATED<
>
>as you like. Sanscrit for "word" is VAC as in vacuum and emptiness. In
>
>the beginning was desire" it says too. The game rules change as we
>
>escape from the witches' cage, Where in the mundane it is our con-text
>
>that prescribes to us,or presumes to, in the astral -Purgatory- we CAN
>
>experience our hidden beliefs as the correlation of in-texts with
>
>ex-texts phenomenally, and in the mystical we have learnt this so can
>
>use this more wisely transcendentally. Graphically and topologically put
>
>thus, from the causal or seed centre projects a 3-D hologramic illusion,
>
>within which we can move and have our being in 2 and 1-D abductive
>
>modes. This is made quite clear in the Sepher and other Talmudic
>
>writings, although within the 3-D and linear this is quite confusing and
>
>paradoxical, being stuck in space and time, where location governs. We
>
>need not, as does the human law, BE responsible for what happens to us
>
>in ignorance and innocence, but we CAN take responsibility, which
>
>changes the nature of the Game and Player as well told in A.E. van
>
>Vogt's Null-A SF stories, by Albert Goseyn, pun for Go-sane. It is truly
>
>as St Paul has it where perfect obedience to the laws is perfect
>
>freedom. Those laws are both simple and infinitely complex in their
>
>outworkings, After all ***IT *** being immortal, boundless and eternal
>
>may well seeM quite devious in its ways to the uninitiated. But once
>
>In-IT-i-ated it is a fun game. Jung, about the collective is quite right
>
>when he mentions that what the experient cannot or won't acknowledge as
>
>IN himself, is that IT comes as Fate from an outside. I find the ego
>
>notion that we each project THE world quite funny. Besides it is
>
>contrary to Ockham's razor. We DO project our individual worlds which
>
>vary everywhere, as, so to speak, our choice selections from an infinite
>
>potential. By this the collective current world condition is a
>
>collective. God seems to like specialists but not the narrow-minded.
>
>He's also very good with logics.
>
>
><4>
>
>This makes of Rilke someone who would be passed as a Zen Master and Lama
>
>both. I won't speak of gurus or wiseacres. Nor will I include any
>
>details from Quantum findings the reader should best explore himself. Of
>
>necessity much of what is written for the benefit of the sense & word
>
>bound somewhat distorts all this but that too is part of the game rules.
>
>It is and has been the best advertised secret ever. One has to learn to
>
>sort the gold from the dross, both in and outside in this resthome for
>
>Angels. It's Your choice, as Hamlet has it, whether it is nobler to
>
>suffer the slings and arrows of Outrageous Fortune, or do otherwise.
>
>It's your free choice, and all roads ultimately lead to Rome, and aye,
>
>away from it as well.
>
>
><5>
>
>I shall now for contrast and confirmation, cite from Zen>> As
>
>serendipity will have it, this just popped up.
>
>" Hardly anything is known of Yangqi (Yangchi), despite the fame of his
>
>school and the powerful influence of the line of teachers descended from
>
>him. Yangqi said that the condition of the environment depends on the
>
>individual and collective mentalities and actions of its inhabitants,
>
>but the individual and collective mentalities and actions of the
>
>inhabitants are also conditioned by the environment. From inside, this
>
>circle is the suffocating wheel of bondage itself, but with
>
>extradimensional consciousness able to deliberately transform thought
>
>and behavior it becomes a field of progressive action."
>
>
>" Detachment from the images formed by the process of conditioning,
>
>Yangqi said, undermines their spellbinding power and enables the mind to
>
>recover the autonomy that makes fresh progress possible. Nothing is
>
>destroyed by this experience, however, except the force of illusion;
>
>Yangqi taught that there is still human feeling, corresponding to the
>
>design and reason of the natural world." Zen Essence, Translated &
>
>Edited by Thomas Cleary pg. 103
>
>
><6>
>
>To summarise, the steersman is then an individual, conjoint part with a
>
>collective, which should be "demo-cratic" and co-active in the IT. But
>
>all which it varies with one's chosen perspective on the situation and
>
>condition. In stone age rock carvings the "Ship of the Dead" is shown
>
>with seven occupants, archetypal of what is built into our being=ness in
>
>varying proportions and redolent of the seven veils of our aura. This is
>
>ante-diluvial where people lived in Grace and were not very interested
>
>in temporary visits. The oft repeated call is "sleeper awake". It's
>
>quite indifferent was to whether we call it a who or a what.
>
>
>"When Buddhas meet, they nod and pass, what is there to say?".
>
>
>"Why are people called Buddhas after they die?
>
>Because they don't grumble any more,
>
>Because they don't make a nuisance of themselves! --Ikkyu
>
>OFF course because they are mythologised and not kept humanised.
>
>
>I hope this very brief KISS exegesis is of use to people.
>
>
>adrian van der meijden adrf@orcon.net.nz

>
>