Theos-Talk Archives (September 2006 Message tt00336)

Hi Henry,

Unless you use the same Subject heading or quote my original letter, I have 
no memory of what I wrote that you are responding to.  However, I'll try to 
respond to your comments and answer your questions below as best I can...

In a message dated 9/15/06 6:58:19 PM, ahokas@bigpond.com writes:

> Thanks Lenny for your kindly reply, it dovetails in nicely.
> The prototype of the type, every coin has two sides, the scientific
> view cares to look at one side only, that of the physical,and gives
> little credence to the possibility of anything other than "that which
> they can measure". It is there religeous belief to exclude anything
> not physical in nature, and thereby exclude nature herself. If
> everything were just a bunch of chemicals without atributes there
> would be nothing to hold them together, or apart for that matter,
> they could have no attributes. These attributes are not physical but
> spirit in nature, nature manifest, that which we cognise, recognise
> (reflection)as nature manifest and in essence
> is "spirit" "mind" "thought" or any other descriptor you may care to
> use.
> I have a zillion other questions, but for now just one
> As HPB writes time is composed of idea, present and memory,does she
> imply that memory is stored within time, as I believe memory has no
> place within the physical. In this context I use the analogy of a
> comet and its tail being memory.
> 
> I have no idea where you found HPB writing that time is composed of anything 
-- since time is simply a measure of change in whatever field of consciousness 
that change takes place, and has no real existence or fixed metric in itself. 
  Perhaps, you misunderstand what she did say... But without the quotes of 
HPB's statements, and the context they pertained to, there's no way of answering 
your question about what she meant, metaphysically.   On the surface, 
however, it seems that you are taking whatever she said too literally, and are 
confusing time as being something substantial -- like box or a field that can 
contain, carry or store something.

I also can't see any sense in your analogy -- since a comets tail is composed 
of substantial matter, just as are the higher order mental fields of 
consciousness that carry memory as holographic wave interference patterns on their 
surfaces.  However, these fields are not the memories themselves but simply 
containers or carriers of the memory patterns for as long as the fields exist after 
the death of the body.   

Thus, our living memories of lower orders of inconsequential thought, 
dissipate after death soon after the Astral and lower Kama-Manas fields decay -- each 
in their own time -- while the consequential karmic memories that were 
transformed into the higher order spiritual aspects of the Buddhi-Manas field 
eventually end up in the Akashic field (as our individual karmic deposits or skandh
as) -- which is close to the zero-point origin of all these fields that are 
coadunate (i.e., "entangled" in modern scientific terms) with the zero-point 
origin of the initial ray (and subsequent triune monadic field) of our individual 
spiritual consciousness. Thus, time at the primal zero-point of pure spiritual 
consciousness has no meaning as a measure, since such a state of abstract 
motion is in relatively infinite duration, and the only change is circular at 
infinite indeterminate degrees of nonlinear spin velocities.   This is far beyond 
any conception of time we might have in our finite existence    

> Sorry another question, What is the
> frequency of time?  It is cyclic, so therefore should have a
> frequency, or is time the containment vessel of all frequency from
> the infinitely small to the infinitely big, with the speed of light no
> limiter at all.
> 
> 
Time is simply a measure of change and in itself is not substantial and 
therefore cannot have a frequency.  The only frequencies (which is related to 
energy or the cyclic motion of space) are the vibrations of the fractally involved 
coadunate but not consubstantial fields of consciousness that radiate from the 
zero-point spinergy of our individual consciousness at the moment of 
conception. 

The only reason that the speed of light, as measured on the physical plane, 
is no limit, is that -- as the higher order fields of consciousness ascend from 
the physical to the spiritual in higher and higher orders of increasing 
frequency spectrums -- the instant or ultimate division of time shortens while the 
speed of "light" (in any such field) increases in accord with the equation E= 
mc^2 ... With "c" (as the velocity of light in any field) = d/t (distance 
divided by time) and with the measure of distance being related to the wave length 
of the "light" frequencies in each such field.   

Since each wave length is a cycle in each given interval of time, we can say 
that light is cyclic while time still remains only a measure of the positional 
or spatial change in the wave form from its beginning to its end.   

Picture a simple sine wave that starts at zero, rises above to a peak, then 
falls below to a trough, and then rises up to zero again -- with the line 
through the zero-points at the beginning and end of the complete cycle representing 
the temporal measure of its change.   The closer the peaks and troughs of the 
wave are to each other the shorter the instant of time to complete the cycle 
and begin a new one.   It follows that, in any such higher order field, the 
speed of its light increases (relative to a lower order field, e.g., our 
physical field) as its wave length shortens and the time interval of its frequency 
cycle lessens.   

With a slight twist of the imagination, it's easy to see how this time 
dilation also determines the infinite duration of the highest order akashic memory 
field -- where the cycle becomes a circle of spin(en)ergy around the zero-point 
of any analogous pralaya prior to and at the "beginning" or awakening of each 
individual lifetime   -- from the smallest single celled organism, through 
all of mankind, and each planet, star and galaxy, to the entire Cosmos itself.

Hope this helps clarify things a bit.   

Best wishes,

Lenny


> regards henry
> 

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