Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00249)

Yes. The Absolute cannot be thought of as an objective THING.  

Also, it cannot "know" anything. Since, if it did, it would have conditions, 
and thereby, couldn't be Absolute -- which means, "empty" of everyTHING.  

This doesn't say however that the Absolute can't be aware or conscious of its 
own emptiness -- as each of us could be of ours, if we reach that state of 
one-pointedness and absolute bliss in Nirvana or Samadhi. In that state, we 
can't know anyTHING either, since mind becomes transcended. 

The Absolute is the causeless cause that has no relationship to the relative 
or anyTHING else that emanates or projects as a hologram from its surrounding 
"Abstract Motion." And, "knowing" Mind doesn't appear until AFTER that 
occurs... The Mind or Buddhi-Manas, itself being only a hologram within that larger 
hologram (the first triple universal Monad) that emanates from the "Spinergy" 
(or Akasha) surrounding the Absolute zero-point.  

Thus, the mind and everyTHING else is relative to all the other holograms 
within that Master hologram. But, the Absolute, being mindless, not only cannot 
know anyTHING, but also is separate from that relative holographic universeit 
projects.   

However, philosophically speaking, the Absolute can also be considered as 
Relative -- since, being infinitely divisible -- there can be an infinite number 
of other Absolutes of which it is an unconditioned part. Thus, the Absolute 
zero-point center of our physical universe, which is everywhere throughout its 
projected space, and also, at our center of individual consciousness, is the 
only one we can talk about. And, then, only when -- no longer relative to any 
other THING -- we can say, "I am THAT I am." 


In a message dated 01/09/05 7:39:01 AM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:

>Do you mean that we have to stop thinking about it as a THING? So only
>Absolute can know Absolute, something outside of it cannot know it? But
>my linear thinking is that the Absolute, somehow, knows that it knows,
>because we are the multitudinous parts of it? We will always be relative
>to it, but it will be absolute in itself because of the relativeness outside
>of itself?
>
>Cass
>
>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>
>Right. There is no such THING as THE Absolute. So how can we talk about
>it viewing or being viewed?
>
>In a message dated 01/09/05 12:32:51 AM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:
>
>Perhaps the only thing that is Absolute, is THAT beyond the zero point.
>PRALAYA?
>
>Zakk Duffany wrote:
>
>The Absolute is Relative when viewed by the Relative.
>The Relative is Absolute when viewed by the Absolute.
>
>Perspectives change with the standpoint of viewing.
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>
>From: 
>To: 
>Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 9:48 PM
>Subject: Re: Theos-World A Question for the New Year
>
>In a message dated 01/08/05 3:38:29 PM, krishtar_a@brturbo.com writes:
>
>>If the absolute evolves. it is not absolute.
>>The absolute cannot evolve, or itīd be relative, and when there is
>>relativeness, we are not dealing with the absolute anymore.(qwack!)
>>
>>Krishtar
>
>But, "The Absolute is Relative, and the Relative is Absolute." Didn't you
>
>know that? It comes straught from the mouth of the Buddha, and was verified
>
>later by HPB.
>
>Leonardo
>
>
>
>>
>
>