Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00164)

  Where the heck do you get "Sanat Kumara" ("a very high being"!!) -
from Baily??  HPB only has a minor note on him in the SD, and nothing
in the BCW I can find.  You can't compare Bailey or CW Bedwetter with
Blavatsky.

Pablo writes: >Kumaras, Manasaputras and Agnisvattas are the same
entities: before, during and after having passed through the human stage.<

   Pablo, I think you might be pretty stupid. Any Blavatsky school-boy
knows that there are no member of any level of Dhyan-Chohans Unless
they have passed through the "human level", because they are more
evolved beings than us, and Have to by law and the nature of things.
You can't get a college degree when you haven't even been through
kindergarten yet. The "Dark Chohans" are nothing but huge elementals
who are Below humanity.  How can you hope to make sense of anything if
you don't even understand this!


   Also, Each of the lokas and talas, no doubt, would have "sub-lokas
and sub-talas" within it, corresponding with the appropriate talas and
lokas, I would expect.  Just as each of the human principles has 7
sub-principles in it corresponding to the main principles.  Basics for
theosophic study, I would think.  Maybe you should read more GdeP.


          - jake j.


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Pablo Sender" <pasender@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Frank
> 
> Let's go to the root of the thing. It is Ok to me if you support GdeP 
> teachings. That's your right. I cannot do it because when studying 
> obscure matters in the SD and going to his books for some light, I 
> never found an answer, only discrepancies (from my point of view). 
> Two small examples, besides that of the 12 globes:
> 1 - He says Kumaras, Manasaputras and Agnisvattas are the same 
> entities: before, during and after having passed through the human 
> stage. A nice idea, but it doesn't fit with HPB's in several ways. 
> One of them: if a Kumara is a spiritually passive entity before 
> passing through the human experience, Why is Sanat Kumara & Co. (very 
> evolved Beings) called that way, and not Sanat Agnisvatta, for 
> example?
> 2 - GdeP says Talas are states on the descending (involutive) arc and 
> Lokas are states on the ascending (evolutive) arc. But then, in HPB's 
> teachings to the EST, she says each loka (or more accurately, the 
> four lower ones) has the seven talas in it, and one can go to one or 
> another in different moments, because Loka is a psychic state related 
> to the spiritual level of evolution of a person, and Tala is the 
> intellectual state at any given moment.
> 
> So you see, I don't consider GdeP teachings very useful, based 
> on "theosophical" reasons (so to say). But nevertheless, I don't deny 
> his teachings may be useful to other people, or my understanding may 
> reveal a different thing in the future, so I would not call it pseudo-
> Theosophy nor even Neo-Theosophy. All those derogative terms are the 
> seed of dogmatism and sectarianism.
> What would you want? A theosophical inquisition? Kill Leadbeaterians! 
> I think that's far below the level of an aspirant to become a true 
> theosophist, and even of a mere academic professor of philosophy. 
> That attitude damages the whole theosophical movement. I've heard 
> serious people disregarding Theosophy because of the internal 
> conflicts among theosophical organizations. Cannot we be mature 
> enough as to treat with respect every theosophical leader? We owe 
> respect to any person, spiritual tradition, etc. Why should we be so 
> emotional when coming to different theosophical leaders? I can only 
> see in that narrow-mindedness.
> According to HPB, theosophy is a term much wider than its modern 
> interpretation. She spoke about J. Boehme as being a theosophist and, 
> let me tell you, his teachings are far more distant from Blavatsky's 
> than Leadbeater's teachings from her.
> Are you aware of HPB's statements as the following?:
> 
> ". . . Every great thinker and philosopher, especially every founder 
> of a new religion, school of philosophy, or sect, is necessarily a 
> Theosophist. Hence, Theosophy and Theosophists have existed ever 
> since the first glimmering of nascent thought made man seek 
> instinctively for the means of expressing HIS OWN INDEPENDENT 
> OPINIONS (Capps added)." CW vol. II, p. 88, `What is Theosophy?'
> 
> There are plenty of them in HPB's writings. But some people choose 
> not to notice them (In the September issue of The Theosophist there 
> will be an article of mine about "What is Theosophy" with several 
> quotations of HPB on this point)
> Of course, we could do comparative studies between the teachings of 
> different theosophical leaders. Seriously, with respect, humility, 
> without saying "this is Theosophy, that is not".
> 
> Well, that's for the time being
> 
> All the best
> 
> p
>