Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00128)

Dear Mr. Leon Maurer:

You wrote:

>
> It follows, that if we fully understand the three Fundamental Principles, and
> particularly, the second -- which implies that the rules governing all
> evolution of the universe (from its initial self awareness in spirit, to the
> myriad forms [fields] of matter that emanate and evolve out of its inherent
> and infinite "space") are the "laws of cycles and periodicity" -- we can go
> back in our mind's eye to the origin of cycles in the spinning energy of pre
> cosmic, non dimensional, zero-point space... And, then, by following the
> progression of its emanation and evolution by a sort of graphical analytical
> mind experimentation ("meditation with a seed," according to Patanjali) -- we
> can envision how these proto-circles of "spinning energy" propagate
> themselves to maintain their eternal "wholeness" -- although separated into
> the seven fold "planes" of bubbles within bubbles within bubbles, etc., as
> already implied, but not yet proven, in the new, multidimensional Superstring
> and M-brane theories...
>
> With such knowledge, coupled with the use of analogy and correspondence, we
> can begin to logically as well as intuitively realize that all cyclic
> phenomena -- (starting with  the initial emanation of the primal fields and
> ending with the progression of the rounds and races, the inner natures of
> man, the chakras, etc.) -- always occurs in seven analogous stages and
> appears three dimensionally on seven simultaneous planes ("in coadunation,
> but not in consubstantiality").

There is something that I still donīt understand.  I could agree with you that,
following those indications, humanity should pass through seven analogous stages.
But, is it also a necessary conclusion, from those indications, that the stages
would mean Races? Why not simply periods?  Is it always period = Race? Couldnīt it
be other way?  Is it also a necessary conclusion that the first Race would be no
physical, or that the Second and Third Races would have the special form of
reproduction that is indicated in the SD?  That old man had to be androgynous? Or
is it also a necessary conclussion the enormous and (actually) non scientifically
supported antiquity of each Race, including (and over all) the Fifth Root Race (a
question apparently eluded by Bart)?

It doesnīt seem to be so.  And, if those doctrines canīt be followed from the
indications you guive, Iīd have to ask again: wich is the ultimate reason that
should leave us (in a rational Justification) to accept those doctrines?  The
trust I mentioned?

Friendly,

David C.


-- 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.