Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00267)

August 16th 1998

Globes and Evolution

Dear "Thread Soul:":        ( and who isn't one ?)

Personally I have not adequately studied what de Puruker has to say in
commentary on HPB's S D .  I am therefore not well qualified to argue for or
against his views.  But I have found HPB's to be consistent.  { What little
of de Puruker's writings I have read have troubled me, since in those steno
reports of what he has given, he very often seems to "talk down" to his
audience, claiming that they neither have the erudition nor the capacity to
understand what he understands.   Also he says in so many words that he will
give them what he considers they will understand. Personally I would not
stand for anyone making such a claim to my face.  I am annoyed by such an
attitude as it neglects the fact that innate in each us is precisely that
"Sutratma" that is our individual link to the UNIVERSAL SPIRIT, and
therefore to the same sources of Knowledge as he and everyone else has.  If
our "Personalities" were not bound by the karma of our past errors, we would
be able to access the same source of Truth that is ever-present around us
all.  I instinctively withdraw from anyone who makes personal claims.

I would therefore hesitate to say if his conclusions are right or wrong.
But I would strongly urge that you independently correlate what HPB has to
say in SD and in her articles on the dual evolutionary program (actually it
is a triple one - see SD I 181) that involves Spirit descending into matter
on one hand, and Matter ascending to Spirit on the other.  The third being
the unmodified CONSCIOUSNESS of each MONAD which gives it the capacity to
see and know everything once that it sets its mind-tool to the discipline of
self-purification and of manifesting that capacity in life.

She (HPB) repeatedly says that both are ONE but in differentiation they
APPEAR to be separate.  The third, the MIND unites both always, and is
perhaps the real CAUSE of all manifestation.

What unites and comprehends them ?  Is it not the 3rd evolutionary factor --
the MIND.

If the MONAD (Atma-Buddhi) is an eternal/immortal UNIT of force having an
entitative existence -- as she says, then it is in terms of MATTER totally
imponderable.  Hence it is incomprehensible except as an ideal, or a
"logical necessity."  And it is the Mind-faculty that is able to encompass
this concept.

HPB says in several places that the REAL MATTER is not known to us.  We have
no means from this plane to analyze it.  But it can also be thought of.

What then is our present "reality ?"  Is it not that which our present
mental faculties ( a mix of Buddhi, manas (higher and lower) and Kama
provide.

What then is our work in this stage of evolution ?  Is it not to try to
grasp what we can of that which the Masters have offered to us ?

Many who have written after HPB's death, trying to offer their
fellow-students such wisdom as they have acquired seem to also offer their
views and in some cases these are not "in line" with HPB's own statements
when these are careful correlated and brought together.

In my opinion before any good answer is to be given to your question, each
one of us ought to set down what WE HAVE FOUND OUT in our own studies of
HPB's (and Master's) writings.

Its always my opinion in giving my views that those are invariably colored
by my own personal mix -- and therefore they ought not to be considered as
anything but a student's views -- seemingly coherent today, but liable to
modification tomorrow, should I find that I have neglected to consider some
vital factor.

In other words.  We deal with a 7-fold Universe.  Nature contains
everything.  Nature is a living, dynamic and progressive WHOLE.  When we
analyze it we, as 7-fold beings using our minds (partially wrapped in
Kama -- and therefore subject to error) may only see a partial view.

If you think this is "hedging," then you are right.  We have each of us the
faculty of inherent vision of the TRUE.  But we are going to be expressing
it in terms of what we have learned and mastered in this personality, in
this life.  It may, therefore be quite incomplete.

I regard all those who have written other than, or after HPB as being in the
same condition.  hence, while I might avail myself of their views I would
not adopt them after much study.

For me, to cut the matter short, I would prefer going directly to HPB and
seeing what she has to say.  I would not do this out of dogmatism or
fanaticism, but to make use of the so-far most accurate information that has
come my way.  It is but natural that others may disagree with me.

Briefly:  there is THE ONE TRUTH.  Our 10-fold, 24-fold, 48-fold, or 7-fold
descriptions of it (offered by various Schools)  -- as an example see how on
p. 157, Vol. I SD, HPB has reconciled several schools of philosophy -- are
only to assist us to consider the many ways in which the CONSCIOUSNESS of
the inner PERCEIVER in each of us (which is our, or rather the "ray" of the
ONE HIGHER SELF of the UNIVERSE) can view any subject selected for
meditation.

Why not, then, try to apply the 7-fold division of Universal and Human
"principles" that HPB seems to have adopted ?

In the first 300 pages of the SD, Vol. 1 she shows, using the Stanzas from
the BOOK OF DZYAN , how Spirit involves itself progressively during the
first 3 Rounds into Matter.  I note that the "builders" -- Dhyani Buddhas
and Dhyan Chohans which once were mind-men, and continue to be MIND BEINGS
work cooperatively in many diverse ways to bring about this gradual
immaterialization  so that by the middle of the 4th Round one finds that the
time for the next crop of MONADS (which on our Earth are those that come
over from the Moon-chain) to have MANAS lit up in them.

This process was apparently done some 18,000,000 + years ago.  We are just
past the mid-way point in this Manvantara.  [ Very few exact figures are
given to us in the SD.  HPB says that these occult figures are withheld as
calculations on them might be dangerous and also inconclusive without some
information we are yet to acquire.  the figures given in SD II 68-70 she
says are based on the Brahmanical, and if we examine the cycles of time
indicated there they appear to be based on the figure 60:

as in 60 x 60 = 360;  360 x 60 x 12 = 432,000;  and so on all multiples --
but she says that those are not the TRUE FIGURES.

So we are only given a theoretical sketch of the Rounds, Globes and Races,
etc....But those of us who are impatient desire to have things fixed in
time, space and as mental images -- so very often we desire a structure that
is quite rigid.  As I see it the danger in that is that we may be starting
with wrong premises.

By now you must be thinking that I am bewildered myself -- in some ways I
am.  In others I think the time has not come for the problem to be solved
entirely, although enough clues have been given for students to do that when
they are "ready."

Ask yourself what would we do with the information if we were given it.  How
would it help us ethically ?  would we live better lives, help more people,
make life easier for the poor and the disadvantaged ?  Where does the
Theosophist need to work ?  To acquire information is good, as study is
needed to be accurate in the study of Karma and its many kinds of
interactions.

But have we acquired enough to help ourselves, and improve our personalities
?  Are we learning how to assist others ?  I ask these questions of myself
as they appear to be important as Practical Theosophy -- of which HPB gives
us so much in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY.

There is much in theosophy that explains and reconciles the obscure
statements made in the earliest texts (such as have come down to us, usually
in translation) from every major religion.  That improves our trust in
Theosophy, if anything.

Next comes the ideas of Karma, reincarnation, our progressive learning, and
the idea that if the Earth is one of the great Schools of mental and
psychical adjustment, then the rest of the Universe has in each center of
Life similar Schools working.  But of what value to us is that information,
which at best is speculative.

Our work is here and now and concerns itself with our environment and
circumstances.  Perhaps that is why the First Object of the T S is Universal
brotherhood:  -- to establish a nucleus thereof.  We are usually not totally
convinced of the importance of that.  Why not ?

I would hesitate to say that "Globes "A: and "G" represent the kama-manasic
condition, as HPB herself indicates we are presently on Globe "G" and it is
here and now that we are dealing each one of us with his or her particular
mix of Manas-Kama.

If we as CONSCIOUSNESS were left without further reference points, we would
be in a sorry state.  But fortunately there is interior to us a Tutor, a
Monitor, and Instructor:  The HIGHER SELF, which is a living "ray" of the
ONE UNIVERSAL AND IMPARTITE SPIRIT.  As aspiring beings, seeking to learn of
the laws of our world and of the improvement of ourselves and others in our
families and communities, we have always THAT to appeal to for information
and guidance.  Is this not what Meditation is for ?  Is the response not the
Intuitions we gather to consider ?

I realize that in trying to answer I have gone far afield, but do consider
if some of the things I offer are useful in this.  And, as we develop this
line of search, we may perhaps uncover some further information.  Let us
then open the INDEX to the SD and see if the references there can give us
more depth.

Best wishes

Dallas

> Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 5:18 PM
> From: "Marshall Hemingway III" <sutratman@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya

>In a message dated 8/15/98 3:31:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>gschueler@netgsi.com writes:
>
><< The Abyss itself is actually the plane containing Globes A' and G'  >>
>
>It seems from the diagram on p. 346 in GdeP's FUNDAMENTALS
>OF ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY that Globes A and G would be on
>a higher plane of matter/energy. i.e., Lower Mental.  Globes B and F
>would be Astral, C and E would be Etheric and the Globe D would
>be dense physical matter.  This is how it's explained in Jinarajadasa's
>FIRST PRINCIPLES OF THEOSOPHY on p. 226.  Globes A and G
>then would be Kama-Manasic but necessarily in the "abyss" as
>would the dense physical globe D, a globe where we are all
>struggling with dense physicality.  The denser the matter the more
>imprisoned is the Monad.  This is truly abysmal compared to a
>living on globes made of mental matter.  I find therefore Purucker's
>description of the two higher globes as "the Abyss" perplexing and
>mystifying. Any thoughts on this, Dallas or Jerry ?
>
>Best wishes,
>Sutratman
>
>
>