Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00403)

>Richard Ihle-->
>...and then
>analogize (in this case into the "trans-anthopological) this into the
>doctrines of Rounds, Root-races, etc. is still something which astounds me.
>
It rather astounds me too. Although, the main elements of her theory
are found in the Talas and Lokas doctrine of Hinduism. There is
little of her theory in Buddhism, to my knowledge, even though Evans-
Wentz does have his Tibetan translator (Sandup ???) say that
her material seems to agree with ancient Buddhist teachings. So far,
no Buddhist text has been translated into English that comes close
to her Cosmo or Anthro genesis of Rounds and Root Races. I just
read a recent book on Tibetan Cosmology containing the four main
versions of creation according to ancient Tibetan teachings, and
none come close. So, where did she get this stuff, anyway?

>Sure, once I learned about about anthropogenesis from HPB, it was a fairly
>easy job to start seeing in myself some of the psychological and
>psychomaturational phenomena which were very probably the initial "micro"
side
>of the analogy; however, I doubt if I would have gotten very far without
this
>Big Pattern pointing the way to the little pattern. I look at HPB's life
and
>have to ask myself if she seemed like a person whose degree of
Self-awareness
>was enough to make her an acute-enough observer of her own conditions to
>generate such an analogy by means of them.
>

Do you mean "as above so below?" Actually, from eveything I have
read about her, I think that she was very capable of a high degree
of Self-awareness. I find myself agreeing with Paul Johnson most
of the time. He suggests that she got the basic ideas from others
and then elaborated on her own a bit, putting stuff together into a
workable "system." I did the same thing myself with Enochian
Magic, and received similar recognition from my peers as she
did from hers :-).

>I am inclined to say no--which, of course, necessarily leaves the door open
>for the possibility that she learned it from someone, or some tradition
based
>upon someone's insights, who had a degree of Self-awareness much higher
than
>her own--i.e., a "Master."
There are many Masters, and none who teach exactly the same thing.
What does this tell us about the subjective nature of spiritual experiences?
The interesting thing here is that most of those differences don't even
matter.

> I cannot but agree that to originate the doctrines of Rounds
>and Root-Races from scratch, one would have to be a Master in a certain
>psychomaturational sense; however, to be able to transmogrify, precipitate,
>teleport etc. in the manner so eagerly believed about HPB's Teachers by
many
>sectarian Theosophists, the Master would also have to be a god as well.
>
There have been a few (Jesus, for example) who could do this, but
not many and I question whether any of a Jesus-stature were known to
HPB. Anyway, in theory I think that she is right about the possibility
of a human being doing such things. But I think HPB could have come
up with Rounds and Root Races on her own with the vast amount of
occult material available to her. I have always wondered if the Stanzas
of Dyzan came from an ancient text as she claimed, or were channeled
by her--and I am not at all sure that it matters.

>. . . On the other hand, if the Big Patterns succeed in instructing us
enough
>about the hidden little patterns and potentialities of our individual
lives,
>who knows what we will be able to do? . . . (I better quit on this
breath.)
>
I think that this is the real intent of a Master giving out a Big Pattern.

>By the way, because of the ACT thing, I have made reservations at the
Wheaton
>Holiday Inn for Friday and Saturday during Summer Convention. How about
you?
Wish I could make it, but time doesn't allow at the present.

Jerry S.