|[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]|
|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
Sep 29, 1993 06:15 PM
by Gerald Schueler
What are "Pleroma Beings?" Are these Nirmanakayas? The term 'pleroma' comes from the Gnostics, who used it in the same way as the ancient Egyptians used NeterCKhert or Tuat (now spelled Dwat), as a general term for the invisible worlds/planes around us (the astral light, if you like). I especially like John Mead's reference to Sri Aurobindo, who I also respect very much. Aurobindo foresaw humanity evolving a self-initiatory capability using the awakening kundalini force within us as a metaphoric symbol. Rather than reliance on a guru or Master as in the past, we would, in the future, learn to rely primarily on our own inner spiritual nature, the god within. I think that this idea fits well into our Western culture which champions self-reliance and independence. I think that many theosophical leaders agree with this idea. In fact, there are some who have suggested that the Messenger from the Lodge, predicted by HPB to come forth during the last 25 years of the 20th century, is the emergence of our own inner divinity. I must take exception to Eldon's statement that "The methods in use by the masters in training and teaching their students have been tried and proven over countless generations, and they are neither arbitrary, nor culture specific." If I read this rightly, you are saying that there is one and only one method of spiritual training. If so, then I must disagree. William Quan Judge wrote a great deal about what he called a new "western occultism" which would be a westernization of the ancient eastern occult training methods. He taught that theosophy was, in fact, the cornerstone of this new western occultism. Also, James Long told me that our "western constitution" simply was not fit for traditional eastern occult training (i.e., full lotus positions, and spending 20 or more years with a Master). This idea was also taught by Carl Jung. While obviously there are a few people inthe west who can undergo traditional eastern occult/yogic training, they are few and far between. I, for one, cannot sitin a lotus position, or even a half lotus. Nor do I need to. Nor have I ever felt the need to place the tip of my tongue on the roof of my mouth. Nor do I feel the need to stare at the tip of my nose. Nor do I meditate at fixed time periods. In fact, Ihave had some of my highest and most profound spiritual experiences while comfortably lying down. By experimenting, I found years ago that one of the best times for meditation, for myself, is at night right before going to sleep. The point is, trouble with the terminology (I have not read Rudhyar) and this may be causing some of my problems. I like your idea of "dynamic fractals" which could serve as a mathematical model for the ancient doctrine of "wheels within wheels." We can certainly discuss "how the Theosophy of H.P.B. fits into the modern world." But I doubt that we will reach any real conclusions on this one. I suspect that several books could be written on this alone. We cannot abstract the theosophy of H.P.B. and subsequent movements from the rest of Humanity." Why not? Christianity has done this quite well. The question comes down to this: Is theosophy supposed to be a religion or not? It was my understanding that it was to form a major world religion someday, much like ??ession of divine wisdom." If I gave you this impression, than I ??log??ted us in the west more than theosophy. But don't sell theosophy short. Theosophy and theosophists have had a lot to do with freeing India, the elimination of the death sentence, prison reform, and many other social improvements as well as reintroducing the concepts of reincarnation and karma to the west. Mary Baker Eddy (founder of Christian Science) wrote that "nothing good will ever come out of the east" just before HPB's theosophy got going. When she wrote this, she was echoing her theosophy. This is also my answer to your "Blavatsky herself was but a minor avatar within these two vaster cycles" of Jesus and science or Newton. The Jesus cycle has had 2000 years, and the Newton cycle has had about 400, while the Blavatsky cycle (if you want to call it this) has had only 100 years. Lets see what happens in another 1000 years (I would not be surprised to find the Blavatsky cycle larger than the Jesus cycle by then and who knows how people will think of Newton by then). "Rudhyar's paradigm is difficult for it forces us to evaluate the very meaning and utility of our lives ... at the root of Humanity." Please explain to me the difference in what Rudhyar taught (as you have described it in the quoted paragraph) and what HPB taught, the Blavatsky paradigm, if you will. I fail to see any difference, because while I never read Rudhyar, I felt forced to do the same things that you have mentioned when I first read Blavatsky. "Do we care to even attempt to define this impulse"? in a word, yes. In fact, without a common definition, we will get nowhere. I think that this should be our first step. But I will leave it to Don or Michael to do so. You are probably not familiar with the wonderful world of magic, but there are several famous magicians (Austin Spare, Aleister Crowley, and Frater Achad for three) who have claimed to have initiated an new avataric age. Crowley even went so far as to predict the fusion of male and female in our society in his Age of Horus, and his Thelemites have used the new unisex trend that began in the 60s to argue their case. As Don has pointed out, we are currently "undergoing tumultous change", but is this change coming from many sources, or is it from one source with many claiming the credit? To answer this, we first must define what the changes are. "Do we have the intellectual courage to see that the theosophy of H.P.B. was but one passing phase in the descent of this newarchetypical impulse?" Probably not. First of all, we have to define what we mean when we say "new archetypical impulse." I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. Secondly, there is no such thing as "the theosophy of H.P.B." really, because she simply repeated or passed on knowledge that she learned from others. Are you saying that reincarnation and karma are transient processes? Are you saying that our monadic essence (a fallout teaching of the Doctrine of Monads) is a temporary phase of our Humanity? I consider myself to have as much "intellectual courage" any the next guy, but what does courage have to do with it? Don, I need some clarification here.