Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00175)

At 07:31 PM 1/17/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Brenda S. Tucker wrote:
>>
>> Does this "side by side" refer to the globe next to us?
>
>No. What I meant was that there are cats and dogs, birds and cows,
>elephants, bugs, fish and sheep, etc. all on planet Earth, living "side
>by side" with man, sometimes in our homes or in the woods, the
>mountains, jungles, etc. You know, like "Mutual of Omaha's Wild
>Kingdom."

How is it possible for you and I to know if what we mean by "animal" in all
its variety as you described above, is a form alone waiting for the return
of its evolving life, or a form equipped with evolving life? We can know
our own nature much easier than we can know what is inside another being.
Let's say that someone devised a test of an animal's brain that could
establish whether an animal would prefer to 1) grow into a human being 2)
stay the same, 3) regress into plant life, or 4) obey God's directive. With
these kinds of results we could judge whether or not the animal was 1) a
co-evolutionary force 2) the remainder of a previous co-evolutionary force
or 3) a unique type of being who is diverse from man's evolutionary status.

When I read the rounds and globes, I understand it to mean that animals are
on Globe E, while man resides on Globe D. I did not know how this was
possible. I just waited patiently until I had further information. My new
information is that animals existed for over 200 million years previous to
man and this would be the ideal time for their seven races to take place.
Maybe I'm the only person who ever asked the question about what our
variety of animal forms could represent. I have read 1980s publications by
Maurice Cooke who says he channeled Hilarion. In this book, creatures are
described in a more detailed manner. Horses are said to be ensouled by
angels.


Taking off on this point, not too extremely I hope, I am not insisting that
ALL forms are ensouled by angels, but that perhaps the animal-being which
will someday become man USES forms similar to those around us, but
currently has only reached the dinosaur stage.

>> Can you explain why the second and
>> the sixth races are androgynous?

>As I understand it, and speaking of this 4th round on this planet Earth
>(globe D): the first, second and the early part of the third root race
>of man were androgynous. I believe they were so because it is the nature
>of the Monad and the Causal Ego to be a polar whole and at these periods
>of man's development it was not necessary yet for the division into two
>distinct sexes.

Wouldn't this be true for animals and plants as well as man? Wouldn't all
forms go through periods of descent as one being, gradually breaking into
two and then return to one being? Why does this seem to occur only with man
if it is a Monadic TRUTH?

>> My explanation is that during the overlap
>> of one kingdom with the next, the process of materialization in one and
>> spiritualization in the next is a mutually beneficial one.
>
>What overlap, when? I don't follow.

I'll try to find some more quotes from THE MAHATMA LETTERS.

>Why don't you try writing about it yourself? How else were you expecting
>it to "surface" in Theosophical litereature? You know, take "independant
>action vis-a-vis hierarchy."

I've been writing about this the best I can. Maybe you missed some of my
earlier pieces, but you can find a webpage I wrote at
http://www.webspawner.com/users/ascension/

Could you try reading this and let me know if I am still being unclear?

>...................but if you are going to try to talk about your
>material with theosophists, it will be important to put it in the
>context they understand, no?

>The "closing of the door" to the human kingdom is said to be a general
>rule, but that there are occasionally exceptions to it during the rest
>of the course of the rounds of this Chain.
>
>What is the dual man-animal sixth race you speak of? The sixth root
>race, (I thought they haven't incarnated yet?) What is a "dinosaur
>progressed soul?" I don't quite know what you're talking about. Where
>are you getting this?

I was referring to what I would consider the sixth race of the animal - an
ascending animal which would be host to a human being who is
materializing from an etheric body. For some reason, if I had an etheric body and needed
to develop physically - bones, eyes, skin, brain, etc., I think it would
help a lot for me to associate with the "highest" lifeform on the planet at
the time - in this case it would have been the dinosaur. If I could
accomplish from inside this being a remake of essential parts which would
be suited to life as I remembered it should be - the human form as we know
it today, and at the same time benefit this creature whose cycle has
turned from one of physical progress to one of physical difficulty existing, it
would make sense to co-occupy this advanced physical body for a time to
accomplish God's plan.

>Again, I'm sorry, but I don't follow you. The way I've been taught to
>understand these cycles seems different from the way you talk about it.

>Are you trying to better understand the varied relationships between the
>Hierarchy of Compassion and Humanity?

People talk about man being involved in a Kali Yuga, a time of darkness.
Well, how does this make any sense? Light is available for all who ask for
it. The way that I am able to make sense out of this is that we are in a
relationship with ascended masters living on the same globe as humanity,
whereby we become a negative energy when compared to them.  When we act, we
create darkness unless we act in consort with them and in beckoning to them
for their better and more powerful ways to live.