[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

other worlds other humanities?

Sep 24, 2004 06:57 AM
by Perry Coles

Hello all,
I am interested in seeing what others on the group think about some
statements from HPB and the Mahatma's.

"The same laws will fashion quite a different set of things and beings
even on this our plane, including in it all our planets. How much more
different then must be external nature in other Solar systems, and how
foolish is it to judge of other stars and worlds and human beings by
our own, as physical science does!"

Key to Theosophy page 86 (section 6)

The statement "other stars and worlds and human beings"
This seems to be suggesting `other worlds' with "human beings"

Also another quote from from KH in letter 16 Pasadena ed.
Letter 68 chronological ed.

"That it is that cardinal tenet which teaches that, as soon as any
conscious or sentient being, whether man, deva, or animal dies, a new
being is produced and he or it reappears in another birth, on the same
or another planet, under conditions of his or its own antecedent making."

Note : "on the same or another planet"

This seems to suggest that we don't necessarily always reincarnate on
the same "planet". 

Does anyone know of any similar quotes ?

Also some more interesting sections in the HPB letters to Sinnett on
Lokas and Talas:
(worth reading the whole of the letters)

"These seven worlds above and seven beneath -- cannot be referred by
you as "blocks" of humanity -- and here Mohini is quite right in
saying, "the Monads, recognisable on earth as human cannot properly be
so called when evolving on other planets" -- though the word "planet"
is also wrong, "world" would have been a better term. These (to us)
invisible worlds, in which evolute "simultaneously with our block of
Humanity" other Humanities, or rather sentient and intelligent Beings
(invent a word for how can we call them "humanity"?) are not on other
planets, for each of the 7 globes or planets of our chain has such a
dual septenary circle of RINGS -- Saturn being the only half frank and
sincere planet in this case -- and it is that which set Hume on his
ears in the beginning with Master K. H., and that led Mohini to
contradict you in appearance -- for while he was thinking of this --
he had never learned much of the physical or mechanical arrangement of
our chain; and also why Mah. K. H. was ever saying of you two -- "both
are right and both wrong."

Now I beg of you not to materialise in your fifth principle way these
worlds. They have no relation whatever with space and time as
understood by your greatest mathematicians, but are entirely out of
space and time -- in the Kantian way, though in space and time Dhyan
Chohanic conceptions and even those of Devachan. "

and also

I think the teachings on globes rounds and chains has very deep and
profound implications and that it would be a mistake to simply
disregard them as outdated.

Maybe we take these teachings far to much on the surface and fail to
see the profound metaphors that are in these teachings.
Maybe the names of the actual `planets' is of less consequence than
the underlying principle.

Now science talks of multi dimensions and multi verse perhaps we
should not be to quick to throw away these teachings because they
don't fit our concretised and linear ways of approaching them.
Perhaps meditation and abstract exploration may help widen our
understandings of the concepts.

I like to speculate on these things what do others think.


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application