Theos-Talk Archives (June 2002 Message tt00023)

It is my contention that most of the ridiculousness you find in
Theosophical fundamentalism is when, in an effort to explain,
Theosophical teachers took continuous phenomena and described them in
terms of discrete units, they confused the explanation with the
explained. In all the talk of the "Cosmic Significance of the Number 7",
you will find that virtually every case where 7 is supposed to be
significant, it is human-created arbitrary boundries on continuous
phenomena. For example, the rainbow. Certainly, you can point to one
color, and say, "That is orange", and another color and say, "that is
yellow", but can you point to a single frequency, and say, "This is
where yellow ends and orange begins"? Can ANYBODY pick out "indigo"?

Bart Lidofsky

Eldon B Tucker wrote:
> I think Ademma probably means "globes" when he said
> "planets." That is, he's asking if instead of seven
> globes of the Earth Planetary Chain, there are eight.
> That would be if you included the "eighth sphere,"
> said to be "behind the moon."
> 
> With this way of thinking, you'd really get nine
> rather than eight. You have the basic seven, one
> lower, and one higher, making nine. The higher one
> is really the lowest of a higher scheme of things
> and the lower one is really the highest of a lower
> scheme.