Theos-Talk Archives (November 2009 Message tt00075)

Please note that my below response is for the benefit of real  
students of consciousness in this forum. LM

On Nov 5, 2009, at 11/5/095:07 PM, Otmar Pokorny wrote:

> From >http://www.experiencefetival.com/fohat<
>
> "Fohat:Theosophy Occultism Mysticism Dictionary on Fohat
>
> A Theosophical definition of FOHAT:
>
> Fohat
>
> Fohat may be considered as the essence of kosmic electricity,  
> provided, however, that in this definition we endow the term  
> electricity with the attribute consciousness...H.P. Blavatsky,  
> quoting one of the ancient mystically occult works, says in  
> substance, 'Fohat is the steed and thought is the rider...Fohat  
> being incessently active is therefore both formative and  
> destructive, because it is through the ceseless working of fohat  
> that unending change continues."
>
> "It is the vital bridge provided by 'Divine Intelligence' in  
> action...it is the consciousness that is the origin and end of all  
> transient forms."[Consciousness creates form, form does not create  
> consciousness]
>
>
>
> Please recall the dilemma I have named action-identity. ['Endow[ing  
> the term electricity with the attribute consciousness'] Action is a  
> part of all structure. Action formed identity by the workings of  
> action within and upon itself. Since all action involves change, it  
> would seem to destroy identity. Any change seems to threaten  
> identity. But, identity is not dependent on stability. Identity,  
> because of its characteristics, will continually seek stability,  
> while stability is impossible. This creates a dilemma.

(Leon) What dilemma?  Our body changes its entire cellular structure  
continuously, and there is nothing in the body that was here when we  
were born -- yet our conscious awareness of our individual self  
identity never changes.  We always remain the same higher self or  
individual ("I AM) identity from birth to death.  All that absolute  
consciousness can do is experience and create change -- so how can  
change create it?
>
> It is this dilemma, between identity's constant attempt to maintain  
> stability and action's inherent drive for change, that results in  
> an imbalance, the creative by-product that is consciousness of  
> self. For consciousness and existence do not result from delicate  
> balances so much as they are made possible by lack of balances.  
> ['It is the vital bridge provided by 'Divine Intelligence' in action']

(Leon) Identity of self is always stable unless we have a mental  
disease such as schizophrenia or multiple identity.  Only a  
materialist who identifies self with mind and brain-body has a  
problem with identity, when he loses parts of them.

Our higher self consciousness was never "created" but joined our mind- 
brain-body at conception, and became experientially conscious when  
the fetus was in its third trimester after the brain began  
development. The phenomenal consciousness, and conceptual ideas  
experienced after birth, as the baby learns it is separate from its  
mother and everything else, has nothing to do with our identity or  
individual self awareness.  This is not the epiphenomenal  
"consciousness" that you, Chris and others speak of.

And because it takes up all our attention, such experiential  
consciousness, overloaded with sensory information, almost totally  
blanks out and blinds us to out higher self consciousness or pure  
awareness... Except when in deep meditation, out of body, during an  
epiphany, or before birth, during infancy and early childhood, and  
just before and after death.  My mother never believed me when iI  
said she was an eternal spirit, until on her deathbed, she said to my  
brother, "Tell Leon(ard) everything he told me about his scientific  
philosophy was right.

>
> Now, I suggest you go back and read the definitions of 'Fohat'  
> listed above.

(leon)  Why"  What scientific or philosophic authority does it have?   
Even Blavatsky warned her students not to accept her authority --  
without being convinced by serious study of the "science" behind it.
>
> C = E + U  where U, basic unpredictability, is explained by, 'It is  
> through the ceaseless working of fohat that unending change continues'

(Leon) I'm afraid that the consciousness you refer to is the  
phenomenal consciousness of our lower animal nature and not the  
individual or observer consciousness (awareness will) -- which is our  
higher self identity.

So, Fohat, as the manifest "cosmic" force of electricity, comes only  
after spirit or consciousness awakens, and the spin momentum of its  
"singularity" radiates its matter-energy-gravitational fields to form  
the initial triune comic monad, of which Fohat is the lower one of  
the dual inner fractal fields at the 1st Logos.

If you go a bit deeper, you'll see that Fohat comes into existence at  
this first Logos -- AFTER the surrounding Spirit or consciousness  
field arises and, cosmic mind or Mahat appears along with Fohat at  
its Ist fractal involution.  See:
http://leonmaurer.info/ABCimages/chakrafield.gif

Fohat, on the physical plane becomes our hyperspatial (Mind/memory,  
Astral) and observable electromagnetic/gravitational energy fields --  
which have nothing to do with the creation of or identity with  
absolute consciousness, whether universal or individual.  "As  above,  
so Below"  See:
http://leonmaurer.info/ABCimages/Cyclic-paths-cosmogenesis.jpg
http://leonmaurer.info/ABCimages/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg
http://leonmaurer.info/ABCimages/PhotonField.gif
>
> C = E + U 'Energy is the steed and thought is the rider.'(HPB)

(Leon)  Yes, thought is the tool of the guiding consciousness, and  
Energy is it's vehicle that they created (remembering that the mind,  
carrying thought. is also a form of energy that needed absolute  
consciousness to create it)    But that -- while it agrees with your  
idea that consciousness creates form -- doesn't seem to be consistent  
with your simplistic equation -- which has no philosophically logical  
or scientific basis -- other than a totally misconstrued metaphor...  
That means something entirely different than you can imagine -- with  
no knowledge of the cosmogenesis in HPB's Tibetan to English  
translation of the Book of Dzyan, in which Fohat has an integral role.

How would we have a car to drive, if some group of individual self  
conscious thinking minds didn't PREDICTABLY create it?  Or are you  
claiming that the car creates the conscious driver, or that the car,  
being forms of energy, is phenomenally conscious?

Since our consciousness of individual self (not personality) does not  
depend on matter-energy or "electricity... And also, since it exists  
at the eternal, unchanging zero-point root of all matter-energy  
forms, it cannot be unpredictable or indeterminate... Therefore, your  
equation, besides having no underlying rationale, is non reversible,  
and your claims that consciousness is equivalent to energy, and  
energy "acting on itself" creates consciousness -- are completely wrong.

> Remember, I am not always going to be around to remind you of this!

(Leon) So what...  Especially when whatever "this" is (in your  
interpretation) is entirely meaningless.   (Even the web site you got  
your quotes from only superficially skims over the occut teaching in  
the Secret Doctrine, or other works of HPB.)

So, maybe you should really study theosophy rather than take words  
out of context and use Blavatsky's glossary definitions and metaphors  
-- taken literally out of context -- before you show us how wise you  
are...
Unless, that is, you are a member of the Scientific Materialist Club  
-- who insist that matter-energy is fundamental and that absolute  
consciousness (awareness, will, qualia) is an epiphenomena of it.   
Membership in that club would pretty much be consistent with your  
apparent sympathy (judging by your recent diatribe) with the Aryan  
Nation and KKK, all of whose members identify their conscious selves  
with their physical bodies.  They would love your (pseudo) scientific  
equations to prove their cases. ;-)

Anyway, I thought you were warned that quoting theosophy or using it  
(or any other occult or mystical teaching) to verify unfounded  
equations or assertions, is not a good idea on forums such as this  
one, that exists, ostensibly, to rationally discuss scientific  
concepts about consciousness, mind, braun, etc.... Although, it's  
perfectly okay to give your philosophical or scientific reasoning  
first, and then claim your conclusions may be consistent with  
theosophocal, Platonic, Pythagorean, or other ancient metaphysics..

(Obviously, you still haven't realized that preaching is not  
teaching, and that even complex logic and hard to follow intricate  
reasoning is better than empty assertions that sound like guesses.)

BTW No one can "walk away" from truth... Since it follows all  
ignorance like the Sun follows the storm and the day follows the  
night. :-).

>
> -Tom



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