Theos-Talk Archives (September 1993 Message tl00057)

Note from John Mead --
the following was bounced from don's message
so I'm sending it back out as part 2
   -----------

(cont'd)

The proccess of manifestation of each new release of the human archetype
is as follows:

As was stated, a new aspects of the archetype manifests in answer
to a collective need present at any given time, a need which will
completely determine and mold the form of expression of the quantal
relase of archetypical energy.

The archetypical energy is super-physical. Its genisis occurs outside
the boundaries of physical space and time. Whatever the actual nature
of this process, it can be conceptualized as the ringing or resonance
of a new quality of Humanness;  new patterns of identity and
relationship at the human level.  Perhaps the unfolding of these
patterns is the unfolding of the Logos, of God's plan, at the Human
level.

Whatever the case, this energy is originally transhuman. It requires
a human agent to release the energy into the human sphere. This is the
role of the avatar. The avatar indeed plays a role similar to a lens
that focuses and concentrates light. From a human perspective, from the
perspective of the "conventional wisdom" of the culture in which the
avatar forms, the avatar is a mutant form.

As Michael explained, the avatar is a seed for a new way of being human.
The appearance of the avatar marks the begining of the literal and
actual manifestation of the new way of being human. Astrologically,
it is the conjunction point, the germination of the seed.  On the human
level, the avatar marks the birth of a new culture, at whatever level
this new culture may operate.

An important aspect of these ideas is that there are avataric cycles
within cycles within cycles. So for example, the great avatar Jesus
sounded a new keynote of relationship in humanity which has affected
Humanity for the past 2000 years. Within this time myriads of sub-
cycles have formed within the impulse marked by Jesus, each subcycle
containing its own avatar.  Thus, the organizational princple we are
deling with here is fractals: things within things wihin things. But
it is not static, each "thing" is a dynamic cycle of birth, growth,
death and regeneration.

Each avataric cycle undergoes these 4 phases: birth, growth, death,
regeneration. As Michael stated, it is imperitive to view any culture
with respect to what phase it is in. The essence of an avataric cycle
(i.e. culture) is completely dependant upon where it stands relative
to the initial impulse. This idea is critical if we want to understand
how the Theosophy of H.P.B. fits into the modern world.  And as well,
I believe it is critical to understand the fractal organization
inherent in these cycles within cycles.

So, on this list we have been discussing such questions as:
what is theosophy? what is the relative value of the various forms
of theosophy?, and I think it is critical that we include the
question: just how does theosophy fit into the
rest of the world?  And it is equally important for each of us
personally to ask the question: what role shall I play in all of this?

Again, we are dealing with cycles within cycles within cycles. We cannot
abstract the theosophy of H.P.B. and subsequent movements from the rest
of Humanity. Thus, the tone of the discussions so far is very much
exclusivistic, as if H.P.B.'s theosophy is somehow the only expression
of divine wisdom (i.e. "theo sophia").  Let me quote Michael here
so as to drive the point home:

> "Another feature inherent in all past occult, philosophical
> and metaphysical formulations is the negation and denial
> syndrome. The new formulation and worldview humanity now needs
> will feature what Rudhyar terms "a total affirmation of being,"
> because a truly holistic worldview does not need to deny any
> experience taking place at any particular moment in the cyclic
> world process."

The question is: can the indivduals here on the list live up
to this challenge? The challenge of recognizing and expressing
a *truely* holistic view? Let us begin by looking at the
greater framework of culture in which theosophy is embedded.

Consider this: Historically,with respect to Western civilization,
it is obvious that the largest visible avataric cycle we are dealing
with is the one began by Jesus 2000 years ago. This cycle, in spite of
the crystalliztion of the Christian sects and Church, is still
immenintely active, and its keynote, as reflected in the morals and
concepts of human relation described in the New Testament, is very
strong even today.

As of 400 years ago, a new subcycle arose which is
of critical importance today and that is the evolution of science.
Here the great avatar was Issac Newton, or perhaps Bacon, who codified
the then new approach we today call "science", and became the exemplar
followed by subsequent generations.

Within these two vaster cycles the theosophical movement of H.P.B. was
born. Blavatsky herself was but a minor avatar within these two vaster
cycles represented by Jesus and by Newton. I feel that it is imperitive
to recognize the place of the theosophical society within the total
evolution of Western Civilization. The avataric cycles represented
by Jesus and Newton affect billions of people, each of us included.
Our very communication through these electronic mediums is the direct
result of the legacies of Jesus and Newton.

Again, the question is: how does theosophy fit in here?

Rudhyar's viewpoint, and Michael's excelent exposition of it
provide us with an increadible and highly effective paradigm with
which to really assess in a deep and meaningful way just what it is we
are doing here in cyberspace in particular, and just what is the meaning
of the theosophical society and its myriad offshoots in general.

Rudhyar's paradigm is difficut for it forces us to evaluate the very
meaning and utility of our lives, of our beliefs and our purposes.
Nothing can be taken for granted in Rudhyar's view. He forces us to look
at all of the forces which completely determine who we are: our
biological instincts, our sociocultural conditioning, the forces of our
own psychology and ego, and the transhuman spiritual forces at the root
of Humanity.

I would suggest that Rudhyar was indeed a *true* theo sophist (the
separation of these words in no accident) because he was highly in
tune with the keynotes of avataric impulse that are
struggling to manifest in the modern world. And he resonated to
this keynote essentially free from the social and political pressures
of any organized dogma, which only serves to cloud up, if not block
completely the expression of the avataric descent.

My questions to the list are:

Do we care to even attempt to define this impulse, this new
avataric descent that is spreading on the planet and has, over the past
100-200 years completey transformed the world and Humanity's place in
it?

Do we have the intellectual courage to see that the thesophy of H.P.B
was but one passing phase in the descent of this new archetypical
impulse?

Do we care to try to explicitly define our role in the descent of this
impulse?

We have to face this all clearly and without sectarian bias. There
is no question in any of our minds that the world and Humanity are
undergoing tumultous change in this, our present era. Can we sqaurely
face this change and try to acsertain its meaning? After all, some
members of this list might want to believe that the myriad movements
begun by Blavatsky have been important to the evolution of Humanity,
but who could deny that Henery Ford, or Steven Jobbs were also integral
parts of the present avataric descent, perhaps much more imporant
agents of release of this descent than was the legacy of Blavatsky?

Within the framework that Michael has presented. I would suggest that
the legacy of Blavatsky is still only a potential. You will note that
Michael was using time scales of hundreds of years to describe avataric
cycles. It has been only over 100 years since Blavatsky did her thing.
In this time, the energy for which Blavatsky was a releasing agent has
been intercepted and transformed by those who have reacted to it and has
been completely distorted, distorted by the same old human impulses
this energy was meant to transform: atomism, egoism, exclusivism, ect.
Thus, 100 years after Blavatsky, the dream of a "universal nucleus of
Brotherhood" has degenerated into all of these myriad schools of
thought, all of these bickering and contradictory claims to be the
"one truth".

I would ask: are the self-proclaimed theosophists on the list proud
of this fact? Proud of the fact that Blavatsky's legacy has degenerated
into so much in-fighting and devisiveness?

Now, I don't want to come across as if all that Blavatsky had started
has come to no good at all. It has come to much good as far as it has
unfolded to this point in time, crippled though it may be. The making
public of occult knowledge is the primary good to have come from
Blavatsky's legacy. However, I want to stress, that it is my opinion,
based upon analyzing the legacy of Blavatsky in the greater framework
of the history of our Western Civilization, that the avataric impulse
which operated through Blavatsky has but manifested feebily to this
point. There is more potential than actuality today.

I would challenge the members of the list with the following idea:
The legacy began by Blavatsky is in a fragile turning point today. It is
highly concievable that Blavatsky's legacy can become but a spiritual
abortion unless a very strong and sincere effort is made to ascertain
the meaning of this legacy and how it can fit in with the
transformations that continue to alter the modern world.  If an
exclusivistic, sectarian conception of theosophy and the theosophical
society is maintained, then such an abortion is practically guaranteed.
If a sincere and serious attempt is made to understand how Blavatsky's
legacy fits into the greater framework of the modern world, then there
is a chance that theosophy can become a suitable vessel to continue the
descent of avataric impulse that is transforming the world before our
very eyes.

Don DeGracia