Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00270)

   Hi Leon,
A couple of questions on your posting. I posted this prior to the Not Fibonacci email but you obviously didn't receive it.


leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> 
Is there anything wrong with thinking that the motive for all this evolution 
stuff could simply be to replicate itself in individual creatures with all its 
inherent potential capabilities, just to see what happens?   

Cass:  Are you talking about a desire through time to unfold into its potential perfection? I am looking at this after individualization.

The most developed, i.e. those that reach their goal for that cycle, move forwards, the laggards, remain, until their goal has been achieved. Each zero point would be individual in that its experiences through all kingdoms would be unique to itself.  The blade of grass that gets trampled on by a cow's hoof would experience a difference existence than the blade of grass next to it, which was not trampled on.  So within the group souls of the mineral, vegetable and animal kingdom each  unique experiences would become absorbed into the group soul prior to individualization.  When we do individualize we do so with the experiences of the group we have since become individualized through.

>From my old notes"
Having reached the goal for the Moon Chain, they are masters of etheric-physical evolution since the Moon Chain had globes from the Higher Mental down to the etheric-physical, and the humanity of that Chain were skilled in the intelligent moulding of etheric material.  Hence, these 'lunar Gods' preside over the PHYSICAL EVOLUTION of the new terrene Chain and evolve all the physical forms of the Chain in the First Round"  They lead and represent the human element during the Second and Third Rounds, and finally evolve their 'shadows' or 'chayas' at the beginning of the Fourth Round for those who come behind.  These Lunar Gods - the Barhishad or Seventh Creative Hierarch - ar thus the true physical parents of 'ancestors' of man.

I am wondering then  if every zero point has a "goal" to reach in terms of the chain that they are on.  This also suggests divine intelligence is guiding each zero point.


Leon: It's fun to imagine... That, when all those creatures evolve to the same 
condition or state of impersonal goodness as the one who dreamed them up in the first place, and all that original flung out spin-energy that constitutes the individual particles and forms of matter have run themselves down to zero in infinite space -- it can go back to sleep in its black hole singularity -- and have just as much time to dream up a new system when it awakens in another Big Bang and another, even greater loop de loop trip through infinite forms and infinite experiences. WOW I can't wait to see and experience that one for myself... 

 Cass:  I was always under the impression that "the one who dreamed them up in the first place" would in Pralaya absorb not only those that have reached a state of impersonal goodness but also those that are,say, still in a state of impersonal discoverers of goodness.  The Cosmic Zero Point Consciousness meditates on itself (through each individual zero point it has created)

Leon: Also, when I come to think about it (just now after instant meditation on all that) the universe really had no choice -- since it can only be governed by its own inherent nature -- which, being "no-thing" in essence (or Ein Soph as the Kabbalists might say) can never change.

Cass: The Universe made a choice when it exhaled.  The choice to exhale.  I agree with you that the choice was made to exhale with "free will".  Without free will the experiences would have been directed and produced from the cosmic zero point consciousness. It's own awareness, omniscience.  With free will, cosmic zero point consciousness, expands and I imagine also includes the negative and positive aspects and opportunities that  free will provides.  Although this is the 10 million dollar question, does zero point consciousness have the 'game theory' principle inherent  in itself, or does the "free will" aspect provide for it, an evolution of itself.  In other words, does 'god' evolve through us and vice versa?  

Leon: Wouldn't that mean that even if there were an infinite number of parallel universes (as modern quantum cosmology speculates) they would still all have to be governed by the same laws of nature? 

Cass: Don't the parallel universes simply provide a different evolutionary learning experience?   I am wondering if the Masters, simply drop their physical bodies, and are therefore able to override the physical laws of nature.  What is interesting to me is how at the Buddhic level we must "know" everything there is to "know". Sadly we would not remember it, or survive, because our brains would not be able to stand the current!   I am not scientific enough to understand whether it is important that all dimensions are governed by the same laws of nature, as it was always my understanding that the soul, as atomic energy, and acting through Buddhi can access all planes.  Buddhic consciousness is beyond the laws of nature (in terms of physical matter).  I imagine that there are laws of spiritual matter and although I don't understand them it has something to do with a natural order of events, whereas here, physical laws of nature, seem to operate through
 attraction/repulsion/electromagnetism, almost a state of ordered chaos? 
Love it when I receive one of your posts, keep that consciousness of yours ticking over as I am sure that many, many  will benefit from your work.

Best wishes,

Cass

ps  Yes it was John Nash. I heard he was diagnosed with schitzophrenia but had no idea he was quoted as saying that his voices were those of the masters.  Also in A Brilliant Mind, he began to control the voices, but that could have just been Hollywood.

leonmaurer@aol.com wrote: 
In a message dated 3/5/06 9:56:53 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:
Hi Cass,

I guess you mean John Nash, the guy who came up with game theory, and was 
deemed a schizophrenic because he claimed he talked with Masters. :-) 

Anyway, you have me baffled.   I don't understand your reference to 
"Fibonacci rule" or Nash's game theory, and their connection with what I wrote below.   
Maybe you should quote the question or statement you're responding to, and 
then answer or comment on it. 

Also, if you want me to read a letter in response to what I wrote, it's not a 
good idea to change the subject.   My box is so full that I only respond to 
mail with my name in the subject line, a thread I started, one I responded to, 
or something that is pertinent to my scientific way of looking at theosophy -- 
like "NOT FIBONACCI 

Best wishes,
Len

> Hi Leon,
> Not the Fibonacci rule, but the one that the chap IN A BRILLIANT MIND was 
> given the Nobel Prize for.� Sorry can't recall the name at the moment.� 
> Something to do with odds and evens.
> Cass
> 
> leonmaurer@aol.com wrote: Maybe, I should have written that last sentence of 
> mine below as...
> 
> > What can we Theosophists, Buddhists, Idealists, Realists, Freemasons, and
> > other scientist-philosophers under one label or another, who are also 
> atheists
> > (or anti religious in the common Judeo-Christian-Muslim sense) do to 
> further
> > spread broadcast this idea of a "scientifically and philosophically
> > intelligent" universe -- in the ordinary "language of this age"... That 
> sees God as
> > nothing more than the impersonal, fundamental cosmic consciousness
> > (awareness-will) and G-force (potential mass energy) underlying and 
> governing all forms
> > and radiant energies of nature, in perfect accord with the fundamental 
> cyclic
> > laws inherent in that original "spinergy"?
> >
> Is there anything wrong with thinking that the motive for all this evolution
> stuff could simply be to replicate itself in individual creatures with all 
> its
> inherent potential capabilities, just to see what happens?��
> 
> You've got to admit that would be one helluvan interesting and absorbing 
> trip
> -- just to watch, and maybe get a little wiser along the way. Everyone 
> learns
> from their mistakes, don't they? :-)
> 
> It's fun to imagine... That, when all those creatures evolve to the same
> condition or state of impersonal goodness as the one who dreamed them up in 
> the
> first place, and all that original flung out spin-energy that constitutes 
> the
> individual particles and forms of matter have run themselves down to zero in
> infinite space -- it can go back to sleep in its black hole singularity -- 
> and
> have just as much time to dream up a new system when it awakens in another 
> Big
> Bang and another, even greater loop de loop trip through infinite forms and
> infinite experiences.�� WOW I can't wait to see and experience that one for
> myself...�
> 
> Also, when I come to think about it (just now after instant meditation on 
> all
> that) the universe really had no choice -- since it can only be governed by
> its own inherent nature -- which, being "no-thing" in essence (or Ein Soph 
> as
> the Kabbalists might say) can never change.�� Wouldn't that mean that even 
> if
> there were an infinite number of parallel universes (as modern quantum
> cosmology speculates) they would still all have to be governed by the same 
> laws of
> nature?
> 
> Isn't that one for the books? ;-)
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> LHM
> 

> 
> In a message dated 3/1/06 6:35:02 PM, leonmaurer@aol.com writes:
> 
> 
> > In a message dated 3/1/06 2:37:57 PM, pabloreyes@hotmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > FASEB opposes using science classes to teach intelligent design,
> > creationism, and other non-scientific beliefs
> >
> > Editor's note:
> > The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB)
> > has issued a statement supporting evolution and opposing the teaching
> > of intelligent design and creationism in science classrooms.
> > Supported by volumes of scientific evidence in numerous fields,
> > evolution is among the most thoroughly tested theories in the
> > biological sciences. The FASEB statement affirms that intelligent
> > design and creationism are not science. These concepts fail to meet
> > the necessary requirements for legitimate scientific theories: they
> > are not based on direct observation or experimentation nor do they
> > generate testable predictions. The Federation believes allowing the
> > concepts of intelligent design and creationism into the science
> > curricula will ultimately impair science education. "Evolution is a
> > critical topic to science education and is the basis for
> > understanding biology and medicine," said FASEB President Bruce R.
> > Bistrian. "The scientific community must rise to the challenge of
> > defending science education against initiatives that push for the
> > teaching of creationism and intelligent design in classrooms," he
> > said. "To not do so would be a grave disservice to our nation's
> > students."
> >
> >
> > I guess that also includes theosophical metaphysics, ABC, and any other
> > scientific theory that might contradict evolution by random mutation and 
> natural
> > selection, or that the DNA code must be created by an intelligent 
> "mind"...
> > That could very well be, if the "scientific" laws of conservation of 
> energy
> > are valid, the Mind (Mahat) of the universe itself.
> >
> > See how Perry Marshall effectively refutes the above statements by FACEB, 
> as
> > well as all other theories of evolution based on scientific materialism --
> > using direct scientific proof that the DNA code had to have been devised 
> by an
> > intelligent mind -- without in any way claiming that such a Godlike Mind
> > justifies the separate personal God idea of the "Creationists."�Ũ
> >
> > Language, DNA and Intelligent Design
> > http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis1.htm�Ũ
> >
> > Information Theory and DNA: Me vs. 30 Atheists
> > http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm
> >
> > What can we theosophists do to further spread broadcast this idea of a
> > "theosophically intelligent" universe in the "language of this age"?�Ũ
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > LHM
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 




			
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]