Re: TMO and MPE

["forestofsymbols" <forestofsymbols@...>]

Rawn, Chuck, and everyone,

Thanks again for the posts. Part of me is probably writing these 
questions just so I can read the responses. Perhaps at this time, it 
would be wiser for me to discontinue this line of inquiry until I 
have progressed further, but who always does the wise thing?

I suppose when I refer to the astral body, I'm not thinking of it 
as existing on a matrix of three dimensional space. I'm thinking of 
it like the fourth spatial dimension (to be distinguished from the 
fourth dimension of "time".)

Now we are probably all familiar with the standard dimensional 
models. On the first dimension, we have a point. It is entirely self-
referential, having no height, width, or depth. On the second 
dimension, we add two axis, the "x" and "y", or "north-south" 
and "east-west". Here is the realm of flat objects, squares, circles, 
and so on. The third dimension adds a new direction, z, depth. Now we 
can move up and down, and plot three-dimensional objects: spheres, 
cubes and so on. 

The fourth dimension, then, would add an additional axis that 
would be difficult for us to see. Some call it "ana" and "kata", or 
perhaps axis "a". The difference between the fourth and third 
dimension would be as drastic as the difference between the second 
and third. Edwin Abbott wrote a book called "Flatland" illustrating 
how two dimensional beings come to discover the miraculous nature of 
the third dimension. The Flatlander, living in two dimensions, only 
sees in two dimensions, north-south and east-west. He doesn't see or 
experience the third dimension, and much magic is performed simply by 
using the up-down axis which to the Flatlander is invisible and 
inconceivable. 

By analogy, one could think how a being who can exist in the fourth 
dimension might appear to work miracles on the third dimension. A few 
examples help to illustrate this (if anyone finds these ideas 
interesting, a fun read is "The Fourth Dimension" by Rudy Rucker).

Teleportation. A Flatlander who lives in two dimensional space 
might be quite surprised to see us vanish before his eyes and appear 
somewhere else altogether, instantanesly. The trick is simply that a 
three dimensional being "vanishes" up into the third dimension, 
and "reappears" simply by coming down.

Omniscient vision. Flatland would be visible, inside and outside, 
to the three-dimensional being who simply rises up and looks down 
over the flat landscape. She would be able to see even inside bodies 
which are sealed in two-dimensions, but open to the view by the 
third. 

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, many people 
turned to the fourth dimension to explain mystical powers in a 
similar manner. 

Drawing this back to Bardon and the Kabbalah, Bardon speaks often 
in the language of his time (speaking of electrical and magnetic 
charges and fluids, for example, is very much representative of this 
period). Likewise, the time in which he was alive saw an interest in 
the fourth spatial dimension (Abbott's book came out in the 1880's; 
some say cubism and Picasso's paintings are an attempt to represent 
a "fourth dimensional view of things", etc.) as well as a rising 
interest in eastern mysticism and occultism as eastern ideas started 
to mingle in the west (the birth of theosophy; Vivikenanda 
introducing the West to Hindi yoga; Gurdjieff and Ouspensky are 
products of this time period). And Bardon himself states that the 
astral plane is "often depicted as the fourth dimension." Of course, 
the fourth dimension of the mystics has other properties as well; it 
is more fluid and etheric than the third dimension, as well as being 
the site of the "blueprint" of physical objects.

To locate the subtle body in three dimensional space would be 
clearly wrong, just as saying that a square contains a cube. But it 
would also be wrong to say that there is no intersection between 
dimensions: a cube, after all, is made up of an infinite number of 
squares stacked on one another. So it makes sense for some one to 
say "the heart chakra is located in the heart". It may not be the 
heart, or contained by the physical space of the heart, but the 
physical location of the heart might be the place where the astral 
and the physical intersect. 

One could make the bold leap that the "ana-kata" axis might be the 
same as the "a depth of good, a depth of evil" of the Sefer Yetzirah 
1:5. Good, in Judaism and Christianity, means "like God." Evil would 
be "unlike God" (God in the more common sense, not in the ALL in All 
sense). To move in the fourth dimension would be to move in 
the "direction" of the subtle, the spiritual, the Kether or in the 
direction of the gross, the physical, Malkhut. This is not to say 
that Malkhut is morally evil, it is simply further down the spiritual 
ladder. 

In this case, the solar plexus indeed contains the beginning of 
the form. The form, as it were, existing in the 
astral/fourth/spiritual dimension, requiring us to move outside of 
three dimensional time and space and onto axis "a". 

I'm not saying this is the right view, or even a good view, but 
this is where I'm coming from. Sorry for all the words, but they do 
tend to multiply.

mj


--- In BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com, "Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@n...> 
wrote:
> Dear 'mj',
> 
> >> So is Greer being reckless by suggesting Tifereth be located in 
the
> area of the heart, and by encouraging beginners to cultivate this 
area?
> <<
> 
> I don't have "Circles of Power" so I don't know what his actual
> instructions are.
> 
> >> One of my reasons for thinking Tifereth might be in the area of
> the heart was in mapping directly the tree of life onto the chakra
> system, so that the Muladhara chakra relates to Malkhut, Swadisthana
> to Yesod, and so on. Clearly, this is not entirely accurate and 
needs
> to be rethought. <<
> 
> As Chuck pointed out, there's no profit to be had from trying to 
make
> this direct correlation. Lots of folks have tried but in my 
opinion,
> this is pointless and leads to a mis-understanding of the Tree of 
Life.
> 
> >> I did note that Bardon places the "depth point" of the person in 
the
> solar plexus. <<
> 
> This is one of those points in IIH where if you have not done 
everything
> that Bardon has instructed up to that point in the Work, you will 
assume
> incorrectly. Some call this a "blind".
> 
> At the beginning of Step Five, Bardon wrote an interesting little 
essay
> about Archimedes and the depth point. Near the end of which he 
stated:
> "The scholar is advised to meditate very intensively about this 
problem,
> and he will be able to open up profundities he never dreamed of and 
a
> high intuition will be his reward." *Assuming* that the scholar
> actually had pursued this intensive meditation about the depth 
point, he
> then proceeded to introduce "Space Magic" and the transference of 
the
> scholar's consciousness into the depth point of external objects. 
If
> the scholar did not already figure out that the depth point is 
*not* a
> point in physical space, then these exercises with external objects 
will
> either teach them this or become incredibly frustrating.
> 
> Let's look at the meditation that Bardon described. It's based upon
> transferring your consciousness to the exact center point of a form.
> When you do that you'll find that the center of any form is 
*infinitely
> small*. In other words, is has no spatial value, no size 
whatsoever.
> Furthermore, within that center point, one finds the *infinitely
> infinite*.
> 
> Simply transferring your consciousness into the physical center of 
an
> object has very little value as an exercise and has no relevance to 
the
> depth point. Furthermore, the solar plexus is not the exact 
physical
> center of most human bodies. Nor is it in any way the "beginning 
of the
> form", as Bardon described the depth point.
> 
> Ultimately, the scholar pursuing these exercises will figure these
> things out and realize that Bardon's words here cannot be taken
> literally.
> 
> My best to you,
> :) Rawn Clark
> 05 Sept 2003
> rawnclark@n...
> rawn@a...
> http://www.ABardonCompanion.com
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BardonPraxis
> http://E.webring.com/hub?ring=arionthebardonwe