Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01806)

To all who have an open mind,
 
How am I getting this through BN-Study when I sent it through Theos-Talk. Can't figure that out.
I have been thinking on Cross Breeding, the following conclusions arise
Cross breeding, say, wheat and rice would produce a hybrid, that was not part of nature. Theosophy teaches, that wheat produces wheat, rice produces rice, etc and there is no crossing. This new specimen "Wherice" would not have the natural protection of nature in relation to its environment, bugs, birds,insects, as it would be outside of the norm. If it survived as a mutation and multiplied it might, in time, take over, and the natural selection species, rice, wheat, may become obsolete, and in the process knock out the balance of nature? We would need to adapt to this or starve. 
 
If the astral precedes the physical, how does this newly formed hybrid relate to its astral counterpart? Are the possibilities of this within the realm of forms? I understand that the vegetable kingdom is in a state of involution but would this have a significant impact on a species that is in a state of evolution?
 
Cass

"W.Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net> wrote:

4 26 2005
 
RE: CROSS BREEDING EXPERIMENTS Atlantis revisited
 
Dear Cass:
 
I am trying to answer you or give some references that will help. But I can
see we may be frustrated to some extent.  
 
Neither of us may be scholars, but, as students, we seek explanations and
apply when possible what we understand on the basis of the universal laws of
analogy and correspondence offered to us as a basis. 
 
HPB has used both words: "astral" and "etheric" but not always as synonyms.
 
In the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY she says: 
 
 
ASTRAL BODY, OR ASTRAL “DOUBLE”. The ethereal counterpart or shadow of man
or animal. The Linga Sharira, the “Doppelgäinger”. The reader must not
confuse it with the ASTRAL SOUL, another name for the lower Manas, or
Kama-Manas so-called, the reflection of the HIGHER EGO."  
Glos 37
 
ETHER. Students are but too apt to confuse this with Akâsa and with Astral
Light. 
 
It is neither, in the sense in which ether is described by physical Science.

 
Ether is a material agent, though hitherto undetected by any physical
apparatus; whereas Akâsa is a distinctly spiritual agent, identical, in one
sense, with the Anima Mundi, while the Astral Light is only the seventh and
highest principle of the terrestrial atmosphere, as undetectable as Akâsa
and real Ether, because it is something quite on another plane. 
 
The seventh principle of the earth’s atmosphere, as said, the Astral Light,
is only the second on the Cosmic scale. The scale of Cosmic Forces,
Principles and Planes, of Emanations—on the metaphysical—and Evolutions—on
the physical plane—is the Cosmic Serpent biting its own tail, the Serpent
reflecting the Higher, and reflected in its turn by the lower Serpent. 
 
The Caduceus explains the mystery, and the four-fold Dodecahedron on the
model of which the universe is said by Plato to have been built by the
manifested Logos—synthesized by the unmanifested First-Born—yields
geometrically the key to Cosmogony and its microcosmic reflection—our
Earth." Glos 115-6
 
----------------------------
 
DTB
I can see this alteration of nomenclature is caused by an historical
divergence of choosing as basic certain texts or words that may not always
with the original writings and teachings of THEOSOPHY.  
 
[ I see that great efforts have / are being made, for instance, 1800 or so
years later, to get back to original texts of the Gospels -- same problem
--but you can see the process speeded up in this matter of Theosophical
texts. Shortly after HPB's death instead of intensive study, those who
desired to bring in masses of people to the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY began the
process of "improvement, altering, simplifying, making more popular,
etc..." the result is what you see now.]
 
You say:
 
"The word "astral" is apt to cause confusion for some people. "Ethereal"
has been suggested as being a preferable word, and is used in place of
"astral" by many writers. P.120 "The Divine Plan [G. Barbarouka]."
 
I do know that the SECRET DOCTRINE was written by HPB under the Masters'
supervision. HPB was Master's messenger, and they vouched for her writings.
It is for this position of primacy that I rely, and on such writings as are
consistent with it. (I am sure you have read the historical certificates
given on that book by the Masters to Dr. Hubbe-Schleiden? I can send you a
copy. They are in PATH, Vol. 8, p. 1-3.)  
 
I have no idea why the writer of the "The DIVINE PLAN" altered the
nomenclature. Unfortunately he is no longer with us to be asked. 
 
All students can follow the SECRET DOCTRINE (original). Obviously not all
students are familiar with all the subsequent books written, and words
chosen to indicate sub-divisions in the time / past event program of
evolution.
 
I am sorry, I strongly feel the only answers or suggestions that which you
and I both can trust, ought to be based on ORIGINAL THEOSOPHY and its
terminology. It may take a while to unravel this.
 
I do not know how to alter my presentation based on something written after
HPB's death by students who used their own changes in nomenclature, and with
which I am unfamiliar.  
 
It is precisely those changes that have caused trouble for all of us. It is
no fault of yours, is my guess, as enthusiastically you found something in
that book that cleared up many (but not all) problems for you ?
 
However, if we desire to study and make use of THEOSOPHY together, then why
not consider the important bridge of a basic unity of texts and words used
by HPB there that solves such problems?   
 
Let me express it as: "its' back to Blavatsky." The other way (trying to
understand precisely what another writer meant) is lengthy and very
argumentative. The writing of a later writer (including myself, please) has
to be analysed, and if necessary, refuted. In my work for the past 60 +
years I have used HPB and the Masters' writings. I have found them
consistent.
 
The writings of students (obviously, including my own) can make changes and
throw the whole philosophy off track. It is for this reason that I use
quotations taken from the original teachers when possible.
 
I know it gives difficulty to some, as you observe. So there we are:
 
As to your tentative conclusions. I would say that what was possible in the
early stages of evolution on our Earth has changed. 
 
There is a statement that in this ROUND FOUR, in GLOBE D (the 4th) the
evolutionary wave passing through the first 4 ROOT-RACES in this GLOBE D,
recapitulates the physiological processes Nature provided in the first FOUR
ROUNDS.
 
----------------------------------
 
Cross breeding and hybridization depend on the astral laws and affinities. 
I find some of these defined in the S D : see S D II 192, 197-9,
779-80; 
 
------------------
 
A quick review of the methods of reproduction is given in S D II 166-7. 
It says: 
 
"Moreover, the progressive order of the methods of reproduction, as unveiled
by science, is a brilliant confirmation of esoteric Ethnology. It is only
necessary to tabulate the data in order to prove our assertion. (Cf.
especially Schmidt's "Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism," p. 39, et. seq.,
and Laing's "A Modern Zoroastrian," pp. 102-111.) 
 
1. FISSION: — 
 
(a) As seen in the division of the homogeneous speck of protoplasm, known as
Moneron or Amoeba, into two. 
 
(b) As seen in the division of the nucleated cell, in which the cell-nucleus
splits into two sub-nuclei, which either develop within the original
cell-wall or burst it, and multiply outside as independent entities. (Cf.,
the First Root-Race.) 
 
II. BUDDING: — 
 
A small portion of the parent structure swells out at the surface and
finally parts company, growing to the size of the original organism; e.g.,
many vegetables, the sea-anemone, etc. (Cf., the Second Root-Race.)  
 
III. SPORES: — 
 
A single cell thrown off by the parent organism, which develops into a
multicellular organism reproducing the features of the latter, e.g.,
bacteria and mosses. 
 
IV. Intermediate HERMAPHRODITISM: — 
 
Male and female organs inhering in the same individual; e.g., the majority
of plants, worms, and snails, etc.; allied to budding. 
(Cf. Second and early Third Root-Races.) 
 
V. TRUE SEXUAL UNION: — 
 
(Cf. later Third Root-Race.) S D II 167-8
----------------------------
 
"We now come to an important point with regard to the double evolution of
the human race. , or the spiritual Dhyanis, had become "intellectual"
through their contact with matter, because they had already reached, during
previous cycles of incarnation, that degree of intellect which enabled them
to become independent and self-conscious entities, on this plane of matter.
They were reborn only by reason of Karmic effects. 
 
They entered those who were "ready," and became the Arhats, or sages,
alluded to above. This needs explanation. 
 
It does not mean that Monads entered forms in which other Monads already
were. 
 
They were "Essences," "Intelligences," and conscious spirits; entities
seeking to become still more conscious by uniting with more developed
matter. Their essence was too pure to be distinct from the universal
essence; but their "Egos," or Manas (since they are called Manasaputra, born
of "Mahat," or Brahma) had to pass through earthly human experiences to
become all-wise, and be able to start on the returning ascending cycle. 
 
The Monads are not discrete principles, limited or conditioned, but rays
from that one universal absolute Principle. The entrance into a dark room
through the same aperture of one ray of sunlight following another will not
constitute two rays, but one ray intensified. It is not in the course of
natural law that man should become a perfect septenary being, before the
seventh race in the seventh Round. Yet he has all these principles latent in
him from his birth. Nor is it part of the evolutionary law that the Fifth
principle (Manas), should receive its complete development before the Fifth
Round. 
 
All such prematurely developed intellects (on the spiritual plane) in our
Race are abnormal; they are those whom we call the "Fifth-Rounders." Even in
the coming seventh Race, at the close of this Fourth Round, while our four
lower principles will be fully developed, that of Manas will be only
proportionately so. This limitation, however, refers solely to the spiritual
development. The intellectual, on the physical plane, was reached during the
Fourth Root-Race. Thus, those who were "half ready," who received "but a
spark," constitute the average humanity which has to acquire its
intellectuality during the present Manvantaric evolution, after which they
will be ready in the next for the full reception of the "Sons of Wisdom." 
 
While those which "were not ready" at all, the latest Monads, which had
hardly evolved from their last transitional and lower animal forms at the
close of the Third Round, remained the "narrow-brained" of the Stanza. This
explains the otherwise unaccountable degrees of intellectuality among the
various races of men — the savage Bushman and the European — even now. Those
tribes of savages, whose reasoning powers are very little above the level of
the animals, are not the unjustly disinherited, or the unfavoured, as some
may think — nothing of the kind. They are simply those latest arrivals among
the human Monads, which were not ready: which have to evolve during the
present Round, as on the three remaining globes (hence on four different
planes of being) so as to arrive at the level of the average class when they
reach the Fifth Round. One remark may prove useful, as food for thought to
the student in this connection. 
 
The MONADS of the lowest specimens of humanity (the "narrow-brained" *
savage South-Sea Islander, the African, the Australian) had no Karma to work
out when first born as men, as their more favoured brethren in intelligence
had. The former are spinning out Karma only now; the latter are burdened
with past, present, and future Karma. In this respect the poor savage is
more fortunate than the greatest genius of civilised countries. 
 
Let us pause before giving any more such strange teachings. Let us try and
find out how far any ancient Scriptures, and even Science, permit the
possibility of, or even distinctly corroborate, such wild notions as are
found in our Anthropogenesis. 
 
Recapitulating that which has been said we find: — That the Secret Doctrine
claims for man, 
 
(1) a polygenetic origin. 
 
(2) A variety of modes of procreation before humanity fell into the ordinary
method of generation. 
 
(3) That the evolution of animals — of the mammalians at any rate — follows
that of man instead of preceding it. 
 
And this is diametrically opposed to the now generally accepted theories of
evolution and the descent of man from an animal ancestor. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
* The term here means neither the dolicho-cephalic nor the brachyo-cephalic,
nor yet skulls of a smaller volume, but simply brains devoid of intellect
generally. The theory which would judge of the intellectual capacity of a
man according to his cranial capacity, seems absurdly illogical to one who
has studied the subject. The skulls of the stone period, as well as those of
African Races (Bushmen included) show that the first are above rather than
below the average of the brain capacity of the modern man, and the skulls of
the last are on the whole (as in the case of Papuans and Polynesians
generally) larger by one cubic inch than that of the average Frenchman.
Again, the cranial capacity of the Parisian of to-day represents an average
of 1437 cubic centimetres compared to 1523 of the Auvergnat. 
 
[ 169 ]
 
Let us, by giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, examine, first of all, the
chances for the polygenetic theory among the men of science. 
 
Now the majority of the Darwinian evolutionists incline to a polygenetic
explanation of the origin of Races. On this particular question, however,
scientists are, as in many other cases, at sixes and sevens; they agree to
disagree.
 
"Does man descend from one single couple or from several groups — monogenism
or polygenism? 
 
As far as one can venture to pronounce on what in the absence of witnesses
(?) will never be known (?), the second hypothesis is far the most
probable."
 
* Abel Hovelacque, in his "Science of Language," comes to a similar
conclusion, arguing from the evidence available to a linguistic enquirer. 
 
In an address delivered before the British Association, Professor W. H.
Flower remarked on this question: — 
 
"The view which appears best to accord with what is now known of the
characters and distribution of the races of man . . . . is a modification of
the monogenistic hypothesis (!). Without entering into the difficult
question of the method of man's first appearance upon the world, we must
assume for it a vast antiquity, at all events as measured by any historical
standard. If we had any approach to a complete palæontological record, the
history of Man could be re-constructed, but nothing of the kind is
forthcoming." 
 
Such an admission must be regarded as fatal to the dogmatism of the physical
Evolutionists, and as opening a wide margin to occult speculations. The
opponents of the Darwinian theory were, and still remain, polygenists. Such
"intellectual giants" as John Crawford and James Hunt discussed the problem
and favoured polygenesis, and in their day there was a far stronger feeling
in favour of than against this theory. It is only in 1864 that Darwinians
began to be wedded to the theory of unity, of which Messrs. Huxley and
Lubbock became the first coryphai. 
 
As regards that other question, of the priority of man to the animals in the
order of evolution, the answer is as promptly given. 
 
If man is really the Microcosm of the Macrocosm, then the teaching has
nothing so very impossible in it, and is but logical. For, man becomes that
Macrocosm for the three lower kingdoms under him. Arguing from a physical
standpoint, all the lower kingdoms, save the mineral — which is light
itself, crystallised and immetallised — from plants to the creatures which
preceded the first mammalians, all have been consolidated in their physical
structures by means of the "cast-off dust" of those minerals, and the refuse
of the human matter, whether from living or dead 
--------------------------------------------------
* A. Lefevre, "Philosophy," p. 498. 
 
[170 ]
 
bodies, on which they fed and which gave them their outer bodies. In his
turn, man grew more physical, by re-absorbing into his system that which he
had given out, and which became transformed in the living animal crucibles
through which it had passed, owing to Nature's alchemical transmutations.
There were animals in those days of which our modern naturalists have never
dreamed; and the stronger became physical material man, the giants of those
times, the more powerful were his emanations. 
 
Once that Androgyne "humanity" separated into sexes, transformed by Nature
into child-bearing engines, it ceased to procreate its like through drops of
vital energy oozing out of the body. But while man was still ignorant of his
procreative powers on the human plane, (before his Fall, as a believer in
Adam would say,) all this vital energy, scattered far and wide from him, was
used by Nature for the production of the first mammal-animal forms. 
 
Evolution is an eternal cycle of becoming, we are taught; and nature never
leaves an atom unused. Moreover, from the beginning of the Round, all in
Nature tends to become Man. All the impulses of the dual, centripetal and
centrifugal Force are directed towards one point — MAN. 
 
The progress in the succession of beings, says Agassiz, "consists in an
increasing similarity of the living fauna, and, among the vertebrates,
especially, in the increasing resemblance to man. Man is the end towards
which all animal creation has tended from the first appearance of the first
palaeozoic fishes." * 
 
Just so; but "the palaeozoic fishes" being at the lower curve of the arc of
the evolution of forms, this Round began with astral man, the reflection of
the Dhyan Chohans, called the "Builders." Man is the alpha and the omega of
objective creation. As said in "Isis Unveiled," "all things had their origin
in spirit — evolution having originally begun from above and proceeding
downwards, instead of the reverse, as taught in the Darwinian theory."†
Therefore, the tendency spoken of by the eminent naturalist above quoted, is
one inherent in every atom. Only, were one to apply it to both sides of the
evolution, the observations made would greatly interfere with the modern
theory, which has now almost become (Darwinian) law. 
 
But in citing the passage from Agassiz' work with approval, it must not be
understood that the occultists are making any concession to the theory,
which derives man from the animal kingdom. The fact that in this Round he
preceded the mammalia is obviously not impugned by the consideration that
the latter (mammalia) follow in the wake of man. 
-------------------------------
 
STERILITY ( A problem to understand ) 
 
S D says:
“A naturalist suggests another difficulty. The human is the only species
which, however unequal in its races, can breed together. "There is no
question of selection between human races," say the anti-Darwinists, and no
evolutionist can deny the argument — one which very triumphantly proves
specific unity.
 
How then can Occultism insist that a portion of the Fourth Race humanity
begot young ones from females of another, only semi-human, if not quite an
animal, race, the hybrids resulting from which union not only bred freely
but produced the ancestors of the modern anthropoid apes? 
 
Esoteric science replies to this that it was in the very beginnings of
physical man. Since then, Nature has changed her ways, and sterility is the
only result of the crime of man's bestiality. But we have to this day proofs
of this. 
 
The Secret Doctrine teaches that the specific unity of mankind is not
without exceptions even now. For there are, or rather still were a few years
ago, descendants of these half-animal tribes or races, both of remote
Lemurian and Lemuro-Atlantean origin. The world knows them as Tasmanians
(now extinct), Australians, Andaman Islanders, etc. The descent of the
Tasmanians can be almost proved by a fact, which struck Darwin a good deal,
without his being able to make anything of it. This fact deserves notice. 

 
Now de Quatrefages and other naturalists, who seek to prove Monogenesis by
the very fact of every race of mankind being capable of crossing with every
other, have left out of their calculations exceptions, which do not in this
case confirm the rule. Human crossing may have been a general rule from the
time of the separation of sexes, and yet that other law may assert itself,
viz., sterility between two human races, just as between two animal species
of various kinds, in those rare cases when a European, condescending to see
in a female of a savage tribe a mate, happens to chose a member of such
mixed tribes.* Darwin notes such 


=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]