Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00202)

Pablo,
thanks for the reference text of Purucker.

He obviously speaks about macro-cosmic evolution.
So, where is the problem with you?
Any why do you find it contrary to HPB?

HPB and GdeP used the term "pseudo-theosophy" ("Begriff" in the Hegelian thought) to label those teachings corrupted by human mind and more or less adulterated.
They did not use that term to decribe original doctrines of the Dzyan school of trans-Himalaja, which are a class above the teachings, which were given out at that time.

The 12-globes-model GdeP taught, is an original doctrine and contradicts not the 7-globes-model of HPB as well as Gautama's 7-globes-model not really contradicted the 5-globes-model of the Vedas, as fanatical and bigot Brahmans believed. The 12 signs of the zodica, which are accepted today, do not contradict the 10 sings of the ancients.

BTW, Tingley used to name the corruptes teachings of Besant and Leadbeater (for which they claimed "freedom" and "tolerance") as "neo-theosophy".
Frank

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Pablo Sender 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World John Algeo on Modern Theosophy


Hi Proto!

I see you go on with your practice of loving-kindness... That's Ok, 
each person chooses the kind of elementals he wants surrounding him. 
Although if you are interested in practical occultism, you should 
read that book by HPB, regarding that inner attitude of 
criticism . . . 
But this is good because you, not being sensible to a bit of 
criticism, I may talk to you frankly (although respectfully). Then 
let's go back to our subject.
I think you may be a good example of what I told to Frank. You didn't 
notice (or didn't know) that the statement regarding the kumaras 
being entities before passing through the human stage belonged to 
GdeP, and therefore, you considered that the one who said that (me, 
to your eyes) must be a "pretty stupid" one. But then, since it is 
GdeP who tell this (see excerpt below), will you maintain your 
judgment? Or is your judgment based only on authorities and not in a 
comprehension of the teachings? If it is so, as it seems to me, then 
you are not against the so-called Neo-Theosophy but against certain 
people (who don't belong to your group), irrespective of their 
teaching.
Anyway, that is not a sin; the problem is either not to be conscious 
of it or not to be sincere enough to acknowledge it.
Here is the excerpt:

". . . when a monad is at the very beginning of its evolutionary 
course in the cosmic manvantara, the technical name given to it is 
Kumara, which is a Sanskrit term meaning virgin. It is virginal in 
the new manvantara. It has therein incurred no sin; it is 
unadulterated, pure monadic essence. When such a Kumara at the end of 
a cosmic manvantara, or two or three, according to its ability to 
evolve, has emanated forth from itself what is in it, has reached the 
bottom of the great sweep of evolving life and has risen on the 
ascending arc to the top of it, the same Kumara then is an 
Agnishwatta because it then has evolved fully forth from itself, 
mind, intellect, and has gained experience. Yet they are both monads, 
or rather it is the same thing: a monad beginning as a Kumara, or as 
I have often put it, an unself-conscious god-spark, ending as an 
Agnishwatta, "purified by fire," which is what Agnishwatta means, the 
fire of the spirit and of experience. 
A Sura is a Kumara -- a god. Because of their great purity, 
virginality in every sense of the word, Hindu mythology called them 
gods. Actually they are monads in so pure, as yet unevolved, a state, 
so undeveloped a state, that they are swept along, as it were, in the 
evolutionary Rivers of Life. When this Sura or Kumara has become an 
Agnishwatta, it is then an Asura . . . from an unself-conscious god-
spark, a Kumara -- the Sura, the monad, the same thing -- through 
suffering and experience in the lower realms of matter, in the 
different planes, has become an Agnishwatta. It has tasted of the 
fire and has become a self-conscious god, an Asura." 

Studies in Occult Philosophy, "Asuras and Suras", G. de Purucker



 

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