Theos-Talk Archives (September 2000 Message tt00015)

Sept 10th 2000

		Re: UNIVERSAL START-UP  &  UNIVERSAL KARMA

Dear Reed:

The "2nd Fundamental" of the S D

describes the basic format for manifesting Universes as:  "The
Eternity of the Universe in toto as a boundless plane;
periodically "the playground of numberless Universes incessantly
manifesting and disappearing," called "the manifesting stars,"
and the "sparks of Eternity."  "The Eternity of the Pilgrim" is
like a wink in the Eye of Self-Existence..."  "The appearance and
disappearance of Worlds is like a regular tidal ebb of flux and
reflux."   [ SD  I 16-17 ]

It seems to me on close analysis that these give us leads from
the limitations of our physical "nature" to the metaphysical.  It
also implies that something in us and the Universe. World, etc...
is of a stable and non-changing BASE.  It persists while its
"vehicles" may alter and change in various ways.

Eternity for the TOTAL UNIVERSE  =  timelessness  =  NO ENDING of
this process of progression.  [TIME and ETERNITY  SD  I  37,
43-4]

All participate in it (see SD I 610 - 633 )  on GODS, MONADS and
ATOMS.  It is a survey of the causative element in every
constructed form anywhere.  It indicates a single UNIVERSAL BASE,
whether there is manifestation or non-manifestation.  We might
call it the UNIVERSAL MIND -- in which inheres the ETERNAL PLAN.
As Humans we share in every aspect of this, but we are not yet
personally aware of this important fact.  We are at present very
much "Personal Minds."  The program of progress for all of us is
to develop (from within) the aspect of the UNIVERSAL MIND which
is to us 'latent' for the moment.

A "boundless plane" indicates a particular ZONE of active
progression -- it is limited in space, energy, time, and other
aspects of Karma and Dharma (duty to be learned and then
voluntarily adopted in life) and the learning of the complexities
and LAWS of Nature (UNIVERSE in toto).  [See Diagram in SD I
200].  3 Zones are presently interactive [SD I 181-2].

"Manifesting Stars" and "Sparks of Eternity"  -- are us as well
as the Worlds, Universes, Atoms, Buddhas, Dhyan Chohans,
Mahatmas, etc... it is a consortium of beings, and of
responsibilities and powers, and of greater or less
self-consciousness, all brought together by KARMA so that each
will assist the others in their INDIVIDUAL PROGRESS.  It is a
part of the process of Universal Brotherhood that is EVER IN
ACTION (Eternal).  In this we see the vast Guruparampara chain of
pupil-teachers, ever at work.

"A wink of the Eye of Self-Existence" seems to indicate that
time-limits such as we know and think of do not exist and other
parameters are prevalent.  [The ultimate divisions of 'time ?']

As I read and think of these things, it indicates to me that
there is so much of the Laws and facts of Nature (in and outside
our limited physical perception parameters) that we have yet to
learn of.

It seems tome that the book:  THE S D is just a beginning and
opens our minds to the potentials and possibilities of our
future, as well as to already existing conditions in planes
(zones) we either know of or are yet to develop an understanding
of.

And yet, I believe that BROTHERHOOD and trust in Karma and Karmic
law is the basis for the acquisition of further knowledge.  We
are student observers and are not yet qualified to set up for
ourselves hard and fast conclusions based on either personal or
limited powers of observation.  But our main responsibility
(dharma) as I see it, is to acquire a certitude in the operations
if Karma -- our own and that of surrounding entities on many
kinds.  We have to pay close attention to all events so as to
extract meaning from them.

I hope this proves to be of use.  Yet, it is only my own point of
view on so vast (and yet intimate)  subject.

D. T. B.

-----Original Message-----
From: Reed Carson [mailto:carson@blavatsky.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 8:56 AM
To: sd@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-sd] Theosophy on the big bang

Lenny,

I was thinking as we began page 1, that some discussion of big
bang would
not be entirely out of order in light of the comological
references, and
even had an unanticipated connection relative to the "point".  So
I offer
this letter showing various Theosophical quotes and maybe one
more letter
which I might get out on mostly science with some Theosophical
thoughts.

Lenny, I thought your letter was interesting and helpful.  Indeed
Theosophy
holds that the universe is 7fold just as man is.  And science is
looking
only at the physical body of the universe!

I think we need to say to Angel and others that Theosophists do
not all
agree amongst themselves on exactly how to interpret the views of
HPB on the
issue of the big bang.  There are several references in the SD
that seem
justify the view that Theosophy supports the big bang.  Yet it is
not so
simple.  I would say there are more references that are contrary
to the big
bang.  And, Lenny, your presentation is a very reasonable and
helpful way to
reconcile those contrary quotations.  Still I don't think there
was a big
bang (BB) and I think some important quotes of HPB's are
misunderstood when
they are interpreted as supporting it. So let me present a few
things.

A notable passage in favor of the BB is SDi26.  There she quotes
from the
Rig Veda:

        "The only One breathed breathless by itself,
        Other than It there nothing since has been.
        Darkness there was, and all at first was veiled
        In gloom profound - an ocean without light -
        The germ that still lay covered in the husk
        Burst forth, one nature, from the fervent heat."

Some ambiguity does creep in since it was from the Rig Veda and
she submits
it without comment.  Yet one wonders, how did the Rig Veda know?
How did
HPB know?

By the way, to set the stage of HPB's time, this was not at all
like the
thought of her day. Steven Hawking says on page 5 of (I think) A
Brief
History of Time,

"It is an interesting reflection on the general climate of
thought before
the twentieth century that no one had suggested that the universe
was
expanding or contracting."
Hawking does not mention that we are interpreting HPB as having
said so.

He goes on,

"It was generally accepted that either the universe had existed
forever in
an unchanging state, or that it had been created at a finite time
in the
past more or less as we observe it today."

Hawking gives us more helpful detail on the thinking of the time
on this
issue - and the discovery that changed it - on pages 39-40.

"So Hubble's discovery in 1929 first informed us that the
universe was
expanding.  (In 1922 the Russian physicist and mathematician
Alexander
Friedmann predicted in advance Hubble's discovery of a non static
universe
based on Einstein's general theory of relativity.)"

"The discovery that the universe is expanding was one of the
great
intellectual revolutions of the twentieth century.  With
hindsight, it is
easy to wonder why no one had thought of it before.  Newton, and
others,
should have realized that a static universe would soon start to
contract
under the influence of gravity.  But suppose instead the universe
expanding.
If it was expanding fairly slowly, the force of gravity would
cause it
eventually to stop expanding and then to start contracting.
However, if it
was expanding at more than a certain critical rate, gravity would
never be
strong enough to stop it, and the universe would continue to
expand
forever." ...

"This behaviour of the universe could have been predicted from
Newton's
theory of gravity at any time in the nineteenth, the eighteenth,
or even the
late seventeenth centuries.  Yet so strong was the belief in a
static
universe that it persisted into the early twentieth century.
Even Einstein,
when he formulated the general theory of relativity in 1915, was
so sure
that the universe had to be static that he modified his theory to
make this
possible, introducing a so-called cosmological constant into his
equations."

Doesn't all of this show that the expanding universe mentioned in
the SD was
very different from the ideas prevailing before and up to the
writing of the
SD and that the greatest minds of that century and other
centuries had
overlooked what was for Blavatsky a basic truth?

Here is another quote in favor of BB. SDI489 says:

"From this it follows that, if it pleased the author of nature
simply to
modify the laws according to which the atoms attract or repel
each other, we
might instantly see the hardest bodies penetrating each other,
the smallest
particles of matter occupying immense spaces, or the largest
masses reducing
themselves to the smallest volumes, the entire universe
concentrating
itself, as it were in a single point."

This is dramatic.  Before others were thinking of such things she
mentions
the "entire universe concentrating itself, as it were in a single
point".

But the above is an obscure statement.  Much more obvious, is the
observation of breathing out and breathing in and her outright
references to
"expansion".

But now, while I have time left and this letter isn't too long,
let me
address the other side.

On SDi62 that that word "expansion", which people would naturally
sieze
upon, is meant differently.

"The expansion 'from within without' of the Mother, called
elsewhere the
'Waters of Space,' 'Universal Matrix,' etc., does not allude to
an expansion
from a small centre or focus, but, without reference to size or
limitation
or area, means the development of limitless subjectivity into as
limitless
objectivity. ... It implies that this expansion, not being an
increase in
size - for infinite extension admits of no enlargement - was a
change of
condition."

For me that is a critical key statement of hers.  Her use of
"expansion"
simply means something other than the way we would naturally
assume!

If we notice, she says the same on SDI63:

        "Fohat runs the Manus' (or Dhyan-Chohan's) errands, and
causes the ideal
prototypes to expand from within without - viz., to cross
gradually, on a
descending scale, all the planes from the noumenon to the lowest
phenomenon,
to bloom finally on the last into full objectivity - the acme of
illusion,
or the grossest matter."

Again there, "expand" means change of state.

We also have to be careful about her use of the term "point".
Page SDi57 says:

"... the point in the Mundane Egg, represented by matter in its
abstract
sense. But the term 'point' must not be understood as applying to
any
particular point in Space for a germ exists in the centre of
every atom, and
these collectively form 'the Germ'".

Then SDi379 says,

"The lotus flower ... is the most graphic allegory ever made: The
Universe
evolving from the central Sun, the POINT, the ever-concealed
germ."

What is she meaning by "POINT" here?

Look also at her comment on "solitary ray" and its meaning.  On
SDi64,

"DARKNESS" RADIATES LIGHT, AND LIGHT DROPS ONE SOLITARY RAY INTO
THE WATERS,
INTO THE MOTHER DEEP. (SDi64)

and she comments:

"The solitary ray dropping into the mother deep may be taken as
meaning
Divine Thought or Intelligence, impregnating chaos.  This,
however, occurs
on the plane of metaphysical abstraction, or rather the plane
whereon that
which we call a metaphysical abstraction is a reality."

Another very un-BB-like is SDi83:

"In the Mandukya (mundaka) Upanishad it is written, 'As a spider
throws out
and retracts its web, as herbs spring up in the ground ... so is
the
Universe derived from the undecaying one' (I. 1. 7).  Brahma, as
'the germ
of unknown Darkness,' is the material from which all evolves and
develops
'as the web from the spider, as foam from the water,' etc.  This
is only
graphic and true, if Brahma the 'Creator' is, as a term, derived
from the
root brih, to increase or expand.  Brahma 'expands' and becomes
the Universe
woven out of his own substance."

One last quote we will be coming to soon seems to describe well
the
transistions described by Leon in talking to compiler.  SDi4:

"Upon inaugurating an active period, says the Secret Doctrine, an
expansion
of this Divine essence from without inwardly and from within
outwardly,
occurs in obedience to eternal and immutable law, and the
phenomenal or
visible universe is the ultimate result of the long chain of
cosmical forces
thus progressively set in motion.  In like manner, when the
passive
condition is resumed, a contraction of the Divine essence takes
place, and
the previous work of creation is gradually and progressively
undone.  The
visible universe becomes disintegrated, its material dispersed;
and
'darkness' solitary and alone, broods once more over the face of
the 'deep.'
To use a metaphor from the Secret Books, which will convey the
idea still
more clearly, an outbreathing of the 'unknown essence' produces
the world;
and an inhalation causes it to disappear.  This process has been
going on
from all eternity, and our present universe is but one of an
infinite
series, which had no beginning and will have no end."

So Leon, I mentioned your earlier contribution and its
helpfulness.  Does
the SD anywhere state the details your gave out?  I agree they
fit nicely
the above quotes.  But how much of the detailed description of
the change of
states was your own reasonable inference versus direct quotes
(about atma to
buddhi etc).


Reed






---
Current topic is at
http://www.blavatsky.net/talk/
You are currently subscribed to bn-sd as: [dalval@nwc.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-bn-sd-6278561A@lists.lyris.net


-- 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.