From the archives of some theosophical e-mail lists.

English

http://list.vnet.net/ ?enter=theos-l

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 07:23:51 -0800 (PST)
Author: Katinka Hesselink
Subject: Re: the one and the many.

Hi Robert,

> Subject: Re: Response to Dallas
> From: Robert Cain
> Perhaps one and many are a response to consciousness and objects coming
> into contact. The one never becomes many except in the imagination of
> the ego ( a temporary phenomena of consciousness perceiving objects self
> and other))

That sounds nice, but it does not explain how objects and consciousness
got seperated in the first place. Which is where a lot of my questions
arise also.

Katinka


Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:24:35 -0500
Author: Jerry Schueler
Subject: Re: The One and the Many

>> Perhaps one and many are a response to consciousness and objects coming
into contact. The one never becomes many except in the imagination of the
ego ( a temporary phenomena of consciousness perceiving objects (self and
other))<<

The ONE is beyond objects. The ONE divides or splits (the real
Big Bang??) into a Self and a Not-Self, both of which then
descend into definition. This separation is way beyond the
ego. When I meditate and transcend ego, I still have a sense
of I and Not-I, right up to what is called a mystical
experience whereupon these two become ONE.

<<That sounds nice, but it does not explain how objects and consciousness got seperated in the first place. Which is where a lot of my questions arise also.
Katinka>>

How the ONE becomes the MANY is an old Zen koan, and has no rational answer.

Jerry S.


Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:21:49 -0500
Author: Robert Cain
Subject: Re: the one and the many.
Body: Katinka Hesselink wrote:

> That sounds nice, but it does not explain how objects and consciousness
> got seperated in the first place. Which is where a lot of my questions
> arise also.
>
> Katinka

They are not really seperate, they are interdependant, one gives rise to the other.
When consciousness fills an object the other objects are perceved as real,
when consciousness fills the dream body the dream object appear as real. The
dream body gets wet with dream rain. When one awaikens both dream body and
dream object are perceved for what they truly are, consciousness. So to with
your question about this.

M

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:09:47 -0800 (PST)
Author: Katinka Hesselink
Subject: Re: The One and the Many

> Subject: Re: the one and the many.
> From: Robert Cain
> Katinka Hesselink wrote:
>
> > That sounds nice, but it does not explain how objects and consciousness
> > got seperated in the first place. Which is where a lot of my questions
> > arise also.
> >
> > Katinka

Robert:
> They are not really seperate, they are interdependant, one gives rise to
> the other.

I agree with that. But if we start with the idea of a One principle, then
my mind does get into trouble, becauses however much our levels of
consciousness are interrelated, still one can see that they are different.
I mean: my consciousness and my body are related, but still my
consciousness does not depend on my body, nor does the body depend on the
consciousness. So they are different aspects of the same thing. How did
those different aspects arise? I notice below that you talk as though
consciousness fills an object. But then, the consciousness is viewed (by
you) as something seperate from the object. Very logical and in accordance
with how we perceive things. But the question remains: how did they
seperate enough for us to be perceived as seperate? I don't really think
there is an answer to this one.
Katinka

> When consciousness fills an object the other objects are perceved as
> real, when consciousness fills the dream body the dream object appear as real.
> The dream body gets wet with dream rain. When one awaikens both dream body
> and dream object are perceved for what they truly are, consciousness. So to
> with your question about this.