Origin: CHANNEL1 - 0594 - NewAge-R
From: TONY PECORARO Public
To: GLENDA STOCKS
Date: 05/30/94 at 14:34
Re: Ulitmate Reality 1/5
Letters on Ultimate Reality
When we attempt to decipher the nature or Ultimate Reality and
further attempt to investigate the means which it is made known to
human beings, then we must needs take into account a Universal
Structure that expands the periphery of menial human cognition.
That one creature may not have "cognitive" abilities to interlace
the constituent fragments of the existence to which it is confined
does not negate the essential essence of an existing substructure
of reality. In the same manner, that some other creature may
temporarily lack the rudimentary means to fathom the existence
which subsumes its existence does negate its reality.
What is given to each individual creature is according to its
confinement, according to its Being in a peculiar modality of
existence; this, however, does not preclude the grander scheme of
what is existentially given as the totality of Ultimate Reality
for a given creature but for which its measure has yet to unfurl
into. It is given, but not fathomed.
What is given to you and I is but a fragment as to what is
given according to the substructure of our existence which allows
for a far greater knowledge of reality but for which you or I have
yet to apprehend in agreement to our rudimentary means.
We can endlessly categorize the varieties and gradations of
knowledge based on our present Being: e.g., what is immediately
known prior to cognition; what is made known by dint of cognition
-- but this will never give us the transrational unity for which
we seek in order to adumbrate the task of personally experiencing
those levels of knowing which lie at the center an all-embracing
unity of existence: Ultimate Reality. [...and which we desire to
The "mental faculty of conception" is but one tool to lay bare
just some of the crevices of our reality -- and this only to a
rather restricted mode of Being.
If you have read "Reality," [12-2-91, Book 23] further above,
then we add "...Seething Chaos..." [12-9-91, Book 23] to
supplement the direction of our meaning.
Certainly, without eyes we cannot see in the sense of physical
things, but this is not our argument. We are not seeking a
sequence of logical determinations in the process of knowing. We
are, however, attempting to uncover the ingredients of an Ultimate
Truth & and an Absolute Universal Structure that is available for
humans to play in; this, you may know, cannot be done my merely
There are means of knowing that transcend our perceptual &
conceptual arrangements. Our present constitutional make-up does
not allow us to replace the means we presently use, but we may
certainly supplant these means when we rightly consider their
proper role in light of their teleological destiny and if we
correctly give credence to their import as a platform from which
to launch a transcendental, transrational, ontological inquiry of
The mental faculty of conception is used to "translate" our
transrational experience (experiences in the realm of the
Absolute) to human knowledge; that is, knowledge which is
accessible to human beings. For this we need those faculties, but
they certainly are not a prerequisite for metalogical knowing
(through experience) or for what is ultimately and exclusively
given but which may be unfathomable due to lethargy of Being!
Do yo feel comfortable with this?
-=<< Continued >>=-
Let us not further perplex the matter by confusing the "known"
and the "given."
What is immediately given may not be immediately known; Being
here surmounts the inquiry by existing as the intermediary between
what is given and what is known--and what is present. This can be
seen as one of the sacred trinities in our philosophical query:
The Knower, Known, & Knowing.
What is present is the totality of potentiality, and our
knowledge of this borders against the unknowable. What is given
is of a second order, so to speak, succumbing to partitions in
creation: In this case, the human entity. What is given for human
capacity is not given for other capacities. This implies a finite
realm or restricted modality of the human domain. This clarifies
our meaning of Being that conforms to an existence to which it is
confined. Within this strictly human realm there are indefinite
possibilities of finite potentials: The domain here is restricted
to the laws to which it must conform. The given, as we said
earlier, is according to creature, our creature, and not some
other. What is given for human existence is exclusive for this
Within man there is Being and there is will; there are
indefinite capacities for knowing. What is known for the
particular Being is not a gauge for the enthralling totality
possible for Being's embodiment (archetype). That I may know is
according to my capacity, and no other. What man may know, as a
tenuous binary star inhabitant, as an earthly species, is
according to his creature, his physical embodiment. However -- and
this is where the insolvable antinomy forever parades among our
conscious awareness of existence -- what the human may know
according to his essence -- Pure Being -- is none other than what
is given for the domain for his existence. This is what is
present, but not known, and may be given. The Spiritual.
We posit in these discourses not what is given to
individuality or individual Being, but what is possible in the
presence of "Pure Being," in its unending perpetuating becoming.
--ALP, 10-2-92 (Steph: Book 25)
-=<< Continued >>=-
This is a touchy subject here; I've gone into it numerous
The example I give you will be related to you on the level of
the rational, on the level of thinking. The "essence" of the
example, the state of the example -- in the state-of-itself -- is
anterior to thinking, meaning transrational. For you to have
knowledge of this, in essence, then this knowledge is best
obtained (let's be careful here) through transrational means--the
"direct" experience--rather than through conceptual means (logical
determina- tions) as in my explication of such.
For example, in a state of "direct knowing," the state of
direct apprehension, there is the experiencing of a fluid
knowingness of that which is apprehended: It is the state of pure
experiencing, of pure knowingness, devoid of thinking and its
conceptual mechanisms. My "explanation" of this is NOT the
experience of this as in the state of being the experience. You
may know this because I tell you it is so, or you may affirm this
through your "direct experience" of this, in which case you will
be assured of its "contents" devoid of the thinking principle.
At the moment -- it is a timeless moment -- of this "pure ex-
periencing," there is only the experiencing. After the fact,
after the experience has transpired, you, your conscious Being,
becomes aware of the experience as a recollection *after having
had it*; and this is very clear to you, nay, self-evident. Then,
by your thinking, you may form a vast variety of concepts to
relate this experience to human knowledge -- in terms of associa-
tions and discreet, logical determinations.
Q: But, apprehending the nature of existence cannot be done
without our mental faculties of perception, conception and reason.
A: This depends on what state of Being one is fathoming from,
which mode of Being one is deciphering from. If one's experience
does not extend beyond the periphery of reason, then no. However,
we maintain that beyond the boundary of reason there are areas
that are transrational, states of Being that humans may indeed
dwell in, so to speak, or areas, as in the "transcendental," from
which the human may operate from.
I have written much in this area; it is a difficult "concept"
to get across. It is a true antinomy.
--ALP, 10-6-92 (Steph2: Book 25)
-=<< Continued >>=-
"Experience" of God -- not "thoughts" of God -- are a matter of
Being; they are not a matter of conceptual manifestation. One may
deliberate about an experience of God, but this deliberation is on
the level of thought and is "after-the fact"; that is, having
already had the God-"experiencing."
Moreover, direct experience of noumena in creation is a
transrational or transcendental experience, outside the domain or
the periphery of intellect and its conceptual mechanisms. It is a
timeless, momentary flash -- an illumination. One translates this
experience to human knowledge by the mind and its faculties, kind
of like a recognition.
With all of this, irrespective of the of the validity of
transrational experience in experiencing God, one has to begin
where one is, in one's present state of Being, in the mode of
Being from which we presently function--and that is our thinking!
I came across two more thoughts on which will allow me to close
That is why I wrote to Anders in Sweden: ["Anders3"--7/27/90,
"2-6-3: For the seer, indwelling within his own consciousness
of pure knowingness, he need not "transform" spiritual per-
ception; he is simply conscious of such "things." And so also for
the student: For his own knowingness, he simply needs to have
consciousness of pure experiencing. However, if the student
wishes to examine, deliberate, or promulgate the contents of
consciousness, then and only then does he require the use of
concepts. That I am, is not a concept; it simply IS. That I wish
to know I am, then the product of this intent is a concept.
Through will, we motivate mind to perform its function of
constructing concepts that fit in with an acceptable framework of
our world-view: This is not experiencing here -- it is after the
fact of experience. (Please see my essay "Shining
Bright"--11/23/88, Book 15.)"
Furthermore, on the "...the Qualifications for Spiritual
Research and..." we noted: ["Qualify"--12/16/90, Book 21]
"In spiritual investigation and spiritual experience, we note
the terms of direct cognition, direct experience, and spiritual
apprehension (refined perception; see "Inner Planes"--6/23/85,
Book 3) as the modality of pure experiencing transcendent to the
thinking principle and originating on the level of Pure Being; and
sensual experience (mundane experience), including abstraction of
notions, as the natural (general) experience of the thinking
principle, with its sub-functions of mental constructs and
sentient interplay. (This here signifies the major differences in
modes of ascertaining knowledge in the western and far eastern
cultures. Western civilization gains knowledge through inference
and testimony (see Patanjali); the eastern culture "apprehends"
knowledge through "direct cognition," through the "direct
experience" of that knowledge -- which lies outside the domain of
thinking intellect; hence we say that the Laws of Nature (the
Vedas) were simply "cognized." Furthermore, we note that any
human, should he so desire, has the ability to "cognize" any
aspect of creation or any nuance of universal knowledge.)
"Behind thought life another
life of the soul must lie, a
soul life that would be con-
cealed rather than revealed
by the action of thought.
The Riddles of Philosophy
-=<< Continued >>=-
"The articulation, however, of any or one of these varieties of
experience (communication via transcript, for example) is always
of the second order of experience: general, sensual experience;
but the "moment of knowing" (actually, outside the confines of
"moment," for moment is time-ideated and direct cognition is
beyond and therefore not bound by temporal constraints) in true
spiritual investigation is [timeless] Pure Being in the domain of
pure experiencing, the first order, and is prior to personal,
individual knowingness, which is "thinking" about..., not the
direct experiencing of it. (See "Shining Bright"--11/23/88, Book
"The qualities of both kinds of experience, although the first
order is more penetrating than the second order and causal in
nature, can be clearly distinguished in the thinking principle by
virtue of the variance in influx of that which is apprehended in
the different varieties (dimensions) of experience. This is made
clear in "Spiritual Things" --10/11/88, Book 15."
But all this begins with where we are at now: Thinking is the
foundation with which to transcend thinking into the realm of
"pure experience"; thinking in the beginning from which we leap
beyond the boundaries of the rational to reach into the domain of
the transrational, the God-experience I spoke of when I noted that
"intellect has to go out the window."
"Wanting" this experience is akin to starting the process of
diving deeper into the realm of thought, moving to subtler and
subtler planes of thought until one eventually and inevitably
arrives at the source of thought and then ultimately transcends
thought, thus plunging into a state of Pure Being, the Absolute
state of existence from which true God-experiencing lives and
ensues according to one's Being.
--ALP, 10-4-92 (MarkJ: Book 25)
But these things are not
disclosed to the uninitiated,
by whom I mean those attached
to the objects of human thought,
and who believe there is no
superessential Reality beyond...
--Dionysius the Areopagite
* The MOG-UR'S EMS þ Granada Hills, CA þ 818-366-1238/8929 þ 21.6K D/S
* PostLink(tm) v1.20á MOGUR (#323) : RelayNet(tm)