Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00375)

Hi Dallas,

>Of what possible use is "ranking ?"

There are *zillions(!)* of uses.  "Ranking" is what allows us to
descriminate and interpret the outcomes of important expansions of
consciousness.  It can be very valuable in psychological studies, etc.
Benjamin Creme has obtained, from the Master, the point of evolution and
Ray structure of over 800 past initiates throughout history.  That provides
the students with a wealth of information in understanding human
development, both for oneself and in general.
  Of course, it shouldn't be really thought of in terms of "ranking" unless
you see it as a means to "compete" with someone for position, etc.  It is
simply a recognition of the state of development that that individual had
achieved.  It can throw a great deal of light on the source of inspiration
for different individuals.  For example, were they emotionally inspired,
mentally inspired, soul polarized, etc.???

>Who wants to feel superior to whom ? Why?

This is not about using it to feel superior to anyone.  Ben does not
release to the public the point of evolution or Ray structure of anyone
living.  There is nothing here about feeling superior.  These have been
released for the same reason that the evolutionary levels of the planets
were given out by Blavatsky or Biailey (i.e.sacred or non-sacred planets,
etc.).  It wasn't so that the Venusians could feel more superior than the
earthlings....it was so that we could understand how energies interacted
and in what directions, etc.

>We have all the trouble in the world managing 
>our own lower nature to be curious about the 
>struggles or the successes of others -- those 
>are all SIDE ISSUES and if anything, they relate
>solely to the individuals themselves and are not 
>up for scrutiny for anyone else save one's INNER MASTER.  
>This has nothing to do with the PRINCIPLES or the 
>PROGRESS of the HUMAN EGO through its many incarnations.  
>It is sheer nonsense to believe that this is
>at all significant.  However if one wants to play with toys, then
>let's go to the real children and cease making Theosophical sand
>castles.  Or am I totally wrong in this ?

I don't see why you think that a thorough understanding of the
developmental stages of "Man" is a "side issue" or "nonsense".  In
understanding ourselves we understand the entire evolution of the universe.
 Why else do you think Blavatsky gave out all the different stages of Man's
development throughout the millions of years??  Do you think that those
stages are irrelevant to you today also??  To be able to study the actions
and thoughts of figures in history AND also have knowledge of their Ray
Structure and Point of Evolution, is perhaps a hugely significant
opportunity in the study of the "PRINCIPLES or the PROGRESS of the HUMAN
EGO through its many incarnations". 
   

>Any writing or attention paid to this is way outside 
>the purview of ORIGINAL THEOSOPHY.  Can you find HPB 
>(or the Masters) wasting
>and time at all on such things ?

Wow!!..... "ORIGINAL theosophy!?!?".....I am not sure how to respond to
this.......I wasn't aware that HPB was the "Alpha and Omega" of the Ageless
Wisdom.  Sure, I could cite a billion spots where HPB and the Masters
"wasted" their time on such things.  
   First, take the "Law of Correspondences" ("As Above, So Below") and
apply it to at least 3/4 of the Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled, and you
have a profoundly inspiring delineation of the evolutionary process and
development of the individual.  Blavatsky often gives you the macrocosmic
picture of things, but she was equally describing the individual man or
woman and their individual development both "through incarnations" and
"within an incarnation". 
   This is what makes the Alice Bailey work so consistent with Blavatsky.
Bailey's work is the psychological key, among other things, to Blavatsky's
work.  That is, she provides the more detailed explanations of the
evolution and development of an individual which Blavatsky had given
earlier in the more symbolical form of the macrocosmic evolution and
development. Read in this light, Bailey and Blavatsky are shockingly
consistent in every way.   But I would suggest that you might be premature
to neuter Blavatsky's "**ORIGINAL** theosophy" to exclude any attention to
the study of "PRINCIPLES or the PROGRESS of the HUMAN EGO through its many
incarnations". I think need to be able to embrace a larger interpretation
of theosophy than what Blavasky was able to get out ot the public in such
difficult circumstances.  She was the "ice breaker", if you will, and had
an enormous task ahead of her.  The fact that theosophy survived is a
testament to the power is pocesses to uncover truth.  But let's not
crystalize that truth too quickly and preserve, like a mumified corpse, the
 dynamic living truths that she delivered.  

>Please -- if this be theosophy (which it is not) 
>then save me
>from it.
>
>Dallas

No further comment.......

Todd


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.