Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tl00045)

Alan:
>In message <v01530501b0d49d137d89@[206.184.204.246]>, Thoa
>Tran <thoa@withoutwalls.com> writes
>>It seems to me that this recording
>>medium is one huge memory bank.  Since time is an illusion, why is there
>>need for memory?
>
>Time *may* be an illusion, but it is nothing more than a measurment of
>movement in *space*.

Yes, it is the temporal fourth dimension.  However, I was referring to the
Ultimate memory.  Since dimensions, mathematically, can go up much higher,
is there any way that we can get closer to the Ultimate via mathematics?
Of course, what we know is very small compared to what we don't know.

>There is no *need* for memory - memory just IS.  Memory is, in a
>sense, Being itself, and I suggest that it is potentially possible for any
>one of us to *remember* anything that has ever happened (or
>happens?).

Yes, that makes sense that memory is the Being itself, and that there is,
ultimately, no *need* for memory.  I think you and I are getting at the
same thing.  What I'm wondering is why, in Theosophy, there is this
mentioning of Akasic memory?  At what level is this Akasic memory?

>Ignatius of Loyala (Founder of the Jesuits) said that there are three
>powers of the "soul" - memory, understanding, and will.  Yep.

Yes, at the soul level, these powers affect the environment and is
subjective.  Everything can be looked at as pure subjectivity, even from a
scientific level.  However, to avoid solipsism, we can look at the world as
infinite possibilities of worlds, the result of each world is from the
effect of each subjectivity on each other.  We can also cancel out memory,
understanding and will if we imagine a subject switching place with another
subject.  In order for one subject to really become the other, the former's
memory, understanding and will will have to become the other's.  What is
left over is pure consciousness.  Even consciousness is ultimately not
necessary.  Like memory, it just IS, the Being itself.

Thoa :o)