Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9233RE: Re to Steve - Phenomena & Noumena

Expand Messages
  • dalval14@earthlink.net
    Nov 26 2:58 AM
      Nov. 26 2002

      Dear Friends:

      I find this most interesting, May I observe?

      If there are mental images, then there has to be a thinker who evolves

      The thinker employs some force to design, frame and animate them, what
      would that be, and how would it be used ?

      are the Thinker and his thoughts, and the surroundings, are all part
      of a single CONSCIOUSNESS ?

      There have to be memories as well. And the power to recollect or
      evoke them ?

      There has thus, to be also the power of anticipation. How Would That
      be Based ?

      Also there has to be some kind of substance (s) on which they are

      The thinker has also the power to alter them.

      At present, it would seem that most thinkers we are aware of, reside
      in bodies of various kinds: matter, electro-magnetic patterns, life
      currents, desires, thoughts, and finally, of universal and impersonal
      facts that are seemingly invariable.

      We might call these last, the basis of WISDOM and of UNIVERSAL MEMORY
      / MIND. [Perhaps these are the "seeds. ? and, or "reality ?"]

      It is not unreasonable to assume that our mental perception, arising
      in the material plane, is self-limited.

      However if that mind (or myself in the here and now) can envisage
      residence and activity in other levels of substance, and, if those are
      in correlation with each other and the physical, then each thinker may
      be an individualized CONSCIOUSNESS with faculties that are drawn from
      the whole of the Universe ( Nature ). Is this a commonly experienced
      "reality ?"

      Are not noumena ( causes ) connected with "phenomena" (effects) on
      various planes, as the effects which choice and change bring about ?
      Are not certain correlated "planes" also affected ?

      What would be so extraordinary as to find that individual Thinkers are
      inevitably all linked ?

      Finally what kind of force (s) or objective (s) cause (s) the UNIVERSE
      ( NATURE ) to be ?

      Is that connected with my and your "existence ?"



      -----Original Message-----
      From: gschueler
      Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 7:52 PM
      To: Theosophy Study List
      Subject: Re to Steve - Phenomena & Noumena

      Hi Steve. Having read your ideas on Kant before, I was pretty sure
      that you
      were Mauri's mystery person.

      <<<Very close. The way Kant, who coined the word, defined it,
      noumenon refers
      to something which can be thought but not experienced directly through
      senses. Phenomena refers to representations in consciousness of
      reality (again in Kant's usage.) We can only experience our conscious
      representations of physical reality and not the reality itself (the
      thing-in-itself or ding-an-such). >>>

      We can think of a rabbit with horns, etc, things that have no "real"
      except as mental images. Are these also noumena? I would think so.

      The Mind Only school of Tibetan Buddhism also teaches that external
      are all conscious respresentations, projections from the alayavijnana.
      say that all possible experience is due to the seeds stored in the
      alayavijnana. And all schools of Mahayana Buddhism agree that there is
      thing-in-itself to experience. It is very unfortunate that Blavatsky
      was so
      vague on this.

      <<<We can, however, if we are objective idealists, infer the existence
      of the
      ding-an-sich at thesame time that we cannot directly experience it.
      therefore becomes a type of noumenon. I found Kant so hard to
      understand that I had to refer to Dewey's explanations to get this.>>>

      OK, but I think that I am more of a subjective idealist, and I do not
      that phenomena or noumena can exist independently of the mind that
      conceives/perceives them. One reason I say this is because in
      meditation we
      can transcend phenomena and noumena. If they are "real" it is hard for
      me to
      see how such a trancendence would be possible. The mind can be raised
      spiritual formless states suggesting that mind has a "real" existence
      phenomena/noumena do not.

      <<<This split between representations in consciousness (phenomena) and
      objective reality being represented in consciousness (noumena) is what
      Hindus call maya. Every Theosophist with whom I have communicated
      denies that
      the split exists.>>>

      Interesting. These "representations in consciousness" sound like the
      taught by the early Mind-Only folks like Dharmakirti. He taught that
      of consciousness were the bridge between external but non-material
      monads and
      conscious experience. Intriguing line of thought there...

      Most Theosophists are of the opinion that maya is simply sensory
      illusion as
      taught in modern science classes. I have been trying to show that is
      it much
      more than this, but only a few seem to understand. According to many
      Buddhists, the very experience of an external reality that seems to be
      independent or different from the mind experiencing it is maya. And
      this is
      true no matter what plane we are on. Dream contents always seem to
      independent of our mind, and even in lucid dreaming we can control
      them but
      cannot unite with them owing to our countless past lives of mayavic
      experiencing. But after we wake from a dream, we realize that they had
      to be
      mental projections. Buddhists claim that after enlightenment, which is
      waking up to mayavic illusion, we will realize that this is true on
      planes. Something to think on, anyway.

      <<<So suppose there are such things as elemental spirits and they are
      connected with forces. We can think the but not perceive them. Thus
      they are
      a type of noumenon, since that is how the word is defined. If we
      develop the
      ability clairvoyantly to perceive them then the elementals cease to be
      noumenal and become phenomenal - thus the idea of "planes" of

      This is certainly one valid way to look at it. The beauty of "reality"
      is that
      it can be modeled in so many ways. When we transcend phonomena on one
      the noumena of the next plane becomes our phenomena and so on up the
      There is no valid reason to reify the planes and posit some kind of
      independent objective reality to them as Blavastky did in the SD. I
      can see
      where our experiences can be modeled either way.