Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tl00109)

Mark told me that he never receive this post in his theos-l digest.  Thus,
I am resending it.

***********
Welcome K! I enjoyed your post. I have the following comments:

K:
>C.W. Leadbeater, the great & terrible, illustrated it good in "Occult
>Chemistry" (p. 21 in 1919 edition)

><BLOCKQUOTE>
>"The atom can scarcely be said to be a "thing", though it is tha material
>out of which all things physical are composed. It is formed by the flow of
>the life-force and vanishes with its ebb. When this force arises in
>"space"* - the apparent void which must be filled with substance of some
>kind, of inconceivable tenuity - atoms appear; if this be artificially
>stopped for a single atom, the atom disappars; there is nothing left.
>Presumably, were that flow checked but for an instant, the whole physical
>world would vanish, as a cloud melts away in the empyrean. It is only the
>persistence of that flow which maintains the physical basis of the
>universe.
>_________
>* When Fohat "digs holes in space"."
></BLOCKQUOTE>

The paragraph before this gives a clarification to this.

<snip>"In this ultimate state of physical matter two types of atoms have
been observed: they are alike in everything save the direction of their
whorls and of the force which pours through them. In the one case force
pours in from the "outside," from fourth-dimensional spaceð(ðThe astral
plane) and passing through the atom, pours into the physical world. In the
second, it pours in from the physical world, and out through the atom into
the "outside" again,ð i.e., vanishes from the physical world."<snip>

I put this in to clarify the meaning of the "disappearance" and
"appearance" of the atom. For those who do not understand the passing on to
various planes, SDI, p. 148 gives a good description.

>Many people like to say that nature of things is emptyness, but they
>normally don't try to underatans what it really means. Though nature of
>things is emptyness, nature of akasha isn't emptiness, but the energy
>creates emptiness in akasha and thus creates the things. Some scientists
>defined the physical vacuum as "superdense degenerated media".

This "superdense degenerated media" is the "ether" that permeates through
all physical matter. This "ether" also varies in density depending on the
plane, with the most ethereal being Akasa or Space.

The energy that permeates all, that "creates emptiness" is the energy of
creation, the outbreath of the One. This energy was borned of "emptiness."
It is the life energy that cannot be contained. It is Desire projecting
outside of itself. It is a dream that is playing itself out. Yet this
energy and this outside projection is not a separate or outside thing but
an indivisible part of the One. The substance of the dreaming, the Mayavic
matter, resulted from the tension of separation between the Mother Root of
Matter and the Father Spirit. The projection is the matter that "came out"
of the "emptiness." This "emptiness" is actually the backbone of Mayavic
matter, a "space" in which matter can find its place, and where it can
exist. Matter cannot exist without this "emptiness."

>Th> called "ether." Ether, as science has defined it, does not exist.
>It is not exactly so. It would be more correct to say that "science has
>defined that ether does not exist" ;) For Einstein it was simply
>unnecessary hypothesis, like god for Laplace. And moreover, Einstein kept
>that opinion not more than 10-15 years. Yet in 1920's he wrote:
>"Corresponding the general relativity theory, the space is inconceivable
>without ether" (Ether & relativity theory, 1920) "We cannot in theoretical
>physics to handle without ether, i.e. continuum provided with physical
>characteristics" (On ether, 1924)
>(of course it's in reverse translation form russian.)

That is also true. However, ether, as a definite property defined by
science, does not exist. Of course, some of the grossest properties of
ether as defined by science can be considered.

>Here in Russia several scientists are continuing to develop theories of
>ether. Some of them derived equations known as "quantum" & "relativistic"
>assuming an ether to be a gaseous meduim and remaining on the classical
>"Newtonian" basis. Leadbeater wrote that an ether has its pressure and it
>is inconceivably high, Aciukovsky in 1980's has calculated it to be 10^29
>atmospheres. He makes relativity obsolete, deriving everything on
>mechanical basis. I can post a short sketch of his main work, "Ether-
>dynamics", if someone's interesting in it. So, we still cannot say that
>science has acknowldged an ether yet, but we already can say that there's
>no unified opinion.

Ultimately, it would be impossible to define ether. Ether, ultimately, is
Mulaprakriti, the spirit-substance that defies description, for it is "not
this."

I would be very interested in reading the work, if you wouldn't mind
posting it. Thanks. I wish you the best of luck in setting up your study
center.

Thoa :o)