Theos-Talk Archives (December 1993 Message tl00072)

Arvind/Eldon/Brenda et al of the AAB/HPB discussion:

     I will have to keep my comments as short as possible because
I'm in the middle of a twenty page paper I have to turn in.

     Let me begin with Arvind's quote from the S.D. concerning
Maitreya Buddha (Vol. I, p. 470), where Arvind partially Quotes:

     "Only it is not in the Kali Yug, our present terrifically
     materialistic age of Darkness, the "Black Age" that a new
     Savior of Humanity can ever appear."

  Arvind finds an apparent contradiction because of a statement
by AAB that the Christ will appear by the year 2025. Now Arvind,
I'm really sorry that you found this one just as I'm in the
middle of a paper, because off hand I can't think of another
section in THE SECRET DOCTRINE that would require more
elucidation. We are dealing with a rather sophisticated concept
here, requiring more explanation then I can give right now, but
lets start with this:

     First of all, go back to page 470 and look at your quote in
context to the entire paragraph. You will find that she is
drawing together the different appellations of the savior figures
in Eastern philosophy. The word "Christ" is never used. She
begins by identifying Avalokiteshwara with Kwan-shi-yin, and in
the second paragraph tells us that they are both forms of the
seventh universal principle. He second sentence beginning "The
Secret Doctrine teaches that..." indicates that her following
statement is from the Esoteric teachings. She quotes: `He who is
first to appear at Renovation will be the last to come before Re-
absorption (pralaya).'  From here she begins an interpretation of
this statement: "Thus the Logoi of all nations...."  Then
continues by making a global mention of savior figures: "from the
Vedic Visvakarma of the Mysteries down to the Savior of the
present civilized nations...."  Visvakarma is the prototype of
the savior mythology, originally based upon the initiation cycle.
H.P.B. discusses this figure in some detail in "The Initiation of
the Sun King," in volume fourteen of her collected works. The
"Savior of the present civilized nations" is of course an oblique
reference to the latest manifestation of the Vivakarma prototype,
in mythology, i.e. the Biblical Jesus. You must be very careful
here about context. In Isis Unveiled, H.P.B. discusses Jesus in
great detail under three aspects: 1 the Historical Jesus, 2 The
Biblical Jesus, 3 The Theological Jesus. There is a forth
aspect, which people too often confuse with the other three: the
Christ, or the seventh Universal Principle.  H.P.B. is very
consistent through out all of her works on this account, and it
is very important to keep in mind which one she is talking about.
In this case, in context with Viviskarma, Avalokiteshwara, Kwan-
shi-yin, The great Dragon of Wisdom and Maitreya Buddha, and the
Savior of the present civilized nations are all names from
different mythological and religious systems referring to the
"seventh Universal Principle," as being equivalent to the Christ.
But mind you, this is not a person, but a *principle*. In the
second paragraph, H.P.B. defines this principle as "the synthetic
aggregation of all the planetary Spirits, Dhyani Chohans."  Thus
we are not speaking of an individual here, but rather an
*abstract principle* that has been *personified* into numerous
mythological characters that we call "saviors."  It is referred
to as a deity, in the same since that the Elohim (the formative
regents of this solar system) is called a deity, though it is a
plural term. In other words, to refer to the seventh universal
principle as an entity, can only be done in the same way that we
might refer to the "army" or the "marines" as an entity.

     Now this brings us down to the section that you quoted (if
you are still with me):

     "Only it is not in the Kali Yug, our present terrifically
     materialistic age of Darkness, the "Black Age" that a new
     Savior of Humanity can ever appear."

     As we have seen above, the "*new* Savior of Humanity" is a
manifestation on earth of this universal Seventh Principle.
H.P.B. doesn't go into how this comes about here (we'll do that
some other time, after the semester is over), but since we are
talking about a collective, it is obvious that this is not a
simple case of some deity that "reincarnates."  Let us just say
that a metaphorical ray is sent. Read "The Incarnation of the Sun
Initiate" for more information.

     H.P.B. says that this Maitreya Buddha will appear in the
seventh race. The seventh race is also our last stage of
evolution this marks our final stage of evolution before going
into obscuration until we are ready to begin our fifth round
evolution. Therefore, I would be very careful about this one.
Rather than some "savior," she could just as well be alluding to
a general spiritual influence.

     Now this brings us to your question:

     Does the above statement mean that HPB did not consider the
     Christ when he overshadowed Jesus 2000 years age (during
     kali Yug) a `savior of Humanity'?

     H.P.B.'s allusion to Jesus in the full paragraph was worded
as the "Savior of the present civilized civilizations."  Since
all of the other characters she was talking about are
mythological, why would this allusion be to a historical Jesus?
Notice that she never used the name "Jesus" or "The Christ" which
would have created confusion, leading people to think that she
was referring to a historical figure, because she was aware that
her reading audience was in the habit of thinking that way. The
reason she alluded to the "Savior of the present civilized
civilizations" is because the Biblical Jesus (not the
theological), is an avatara figure, borrowed from Egyptian and
Hindu mythology. For a detailed discussion of this, I refer you
to ISIS UNVEILED and "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels"
where she discusses this in some depth. But you must keep in
mind that this Jesus is *not* a historical, but a *mythological*
figure.

     For Eldon's benefit, I must here acknowledge that G. de
Purucker (1875-1942) teaches that Jesus was both an Avatara and a
historical figure. I have for years put out the challenge to
students of Purucker to produce a single passage in H.P.B.'s
writings were she refers to a *historical* Avataric Jesus. A lot
of people got mad at me, but as yet, no one has produced the
reference. In fact, I even got an admission out of the Current
editor of Blavatsky's collected works, that such a reference is
not to be found. I am not saying that Purucker was wrong, I am
only saying that the concept of a historical Avataric Jesus is
not among H.P.B.'s teachings. However, Purucker has a rather
special definition of "avatar," but this is off the subject.
Perhaps Eldon will want to do an essay on this sometime.

     For the historical Jesus, there are references scattered all
through H.P.B.'s writings. She draws from Jewish documents that
Jesus was a Syrian sage (sometimes she calls him an "adept,"
which is not the same as "avatar") who was born in Syria about
100 B.C. under the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 B.C.).
The title "adept" implies that Jesus was initiated--and H.P.B.
does refer to him as an "initiate."  But an "initiate" is not the
same concept as "Avatara."  The Jesus in this context, was a
messenger who went among the masses knowing the dangers of doing
so.

     But there is no association between this historical Jesus
and the Maitreya. For this we have to go to Leadbeater's MASTERS
AND THE PATH. Here Leadbeater introduces a concept of the
Maitreya as a spiritual being who incarnates as different people.
He incarnated as the Buddha, as Jesus, and finally as
Krishnamurti. But as I say, this is completely Leadbeater's
teaching. I have found no collaboration for it in Blavatsky's
writings. In fact, as I hope you see from the above, her
teachings starkly contradict him.

     In answer to the last part of your question concerning
spiritual cycles. H.P.B. talks about a 2000 year "messianic"
cycle. The Historical Jesus may have filled this role, but that
makes him no different from what H.P.B. describes him to be.
Purucker states, for whatever it is worth, that H.P.B. was the
messenger for this messianic cycle, and that the modern
Theosophical Movement begun by Blavatsky is to last for 2000
years. That means the Jesus and Blavatsky were both messengers
of the messianic cycle, which H.P.B. calculates to have
culminated in 1899. There is also supposed to be an effort made
at the last quarter of every century to "enlighten the
barbarians" (that's us). This decree was made by Tsong-Ka-Pa in
the thirteenth century. Some say that H.P.B. also was a
representative of that effort.

     Concerning the "keys" that Eldon came up with: Thank you for
the effort, but I had already researched this out quite
thoroughly some years ago. As Eldon pointed out, H.P.B. does not
give the order of the keys, with the exception of the "mystical"
(Theogonic) and the "Geometrical."  The Numerical, according to
H.P.B. is the fourth key. But with a little common sense, I
think one can get the order down pretty close. Eldon is correct
is surmising that some terms refer to the same key. A close
reading in context would have made this self evident.

     I think it is also important to note, in case there is any
misunderstanding, what H.P.B. means by "key."  A key is a system,
or a pattern of signifiers, (like a language), by which the
meaning of esoteric texts can be decoded. An esoteric text may
have several keys, but not necessarily all seven. Nor is every
part of every text applicable to be decoded by every key, though
the symbols and allegories will all have seven keys.

     I have taught this subject for several years. One of the
activities we have in our study group here is that we read and
interpret esoteric texts using the keys. We don't have time to
decode the texts using all of the keys, but I teach them to a
least recognize when to use which key. They are getting very
good at it.

 Below are the seven keys in their approximately correct order,
with some page references so that you can look them up for
yourself. There are a lot more references than I gave, but no
time to dig them out right now:

1. Theogonic (or mystical)

     This key concerns the birth of the gods. Hesiod's Theogony
is a theogonic text, and is intended to be interpreted primarily
in this way. II: 291

2. Anthropological

     Concerns the birth and evolution of the Human kingdom. I:
     109

3. Astro-Chemical

     This key is primarily used in the interpretation of
     Alchemical texts. I: 109

4. Numerical

     This is the key revealed through Skinner's THE SOURCE OF
     MEASURES. It has to do with numerical correlations to
     ancient alphabets. It also has to do with key numbers for
     calculating cycles etc. that have been with held. I: 164

5. Geometric

     Symbols of nature and shapes such as the Platonic solids
     have special meaning. This is one of the keys to Biblical
     interpretation. Gordon Plummer's THE MATHEMATICS OF THE
     COSMIC MIND  explicates on this subject. II: 471


6. Astronomical
     Special symbolical system, fragments of which are still to
     be found in astrology. Tilik's ORION, THE ARTIC HOME OF THE
     VEDAS is an interpretation of the Vedas, using the
     astronomical key.

7. Physical

     Physical nature. The one key available to science. I: 155
     fn.

     As for others "keys" that Eldon mentioned: Law of analogy is
not a key, but a general principle of occult investigation.
Symbolism is not a key, but rather what all of these keys have in
common. "anthroposophy" is not a key, but rather the name of
Rudolf Steiner's school of thought. Perhaps, Eldon meant to
write "anthropology,"  but he didn't give any page references, so
I can't follow his trail. I never heard of "metrological."
Perhaps Eldon can clarify. Atma-Vidya means Divine Wisdom, and
is not a key, but rather another term for Theosophy.

     Regarding Brenda's quote II: 22 fn. H.P.B. is not talking
about keys here, but "aspects" of the keys. In other words, a
key may not be correctly used from a psychological or
astronomical aspect, but if you look at it from its physical or
metaphysical aspect, you may get the correct meaning. Therefore
she is not naming a "psychological key" here, but rather
discussing ways of correctly using a given key.

     Concerning Arvind's question: "Are Globes and Planes the
same thing?"  It appears that you have a lot of answers already,
but here is mine:

     A plane is defined in the Glossary in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY
as "the range or extent of some state of consciousness, or the
state of matter corresponding to the perceptive powers of a
particular set of senses."

     As for "globe," you are sitting on one. We call it "earth,"
but in theosophical jargon, it is called the "fourth globe of the
earth planetary chain."  There are six more globes in the earth
chain, but they are invisible. Your naming of the Kosmic planes
are correct for Leadbeater's nomenclature, but incorrect for
Blavatsky. From lowest to highest they are:

1. 1st Kosmic Plane (Prakritic)
2. 2nd Kosmic Plane
3. 3rd Kosmic Plane (Jiva-Fohat)
4. 4th Kosmic Plane
5. 5th Kosmic Plane
6. 6th Kosmic Plane
7. 7th Kosmic Plane


The seven Solar Planes from lowest to highest are called

1. Prakritic
2. Astral
3. Jivic
4. Fohatic
5. Mahatic
6. Alayic
7. Auric

While we are at it, H.P.B.'s nomenclature of the seven principles
are also different from Leadbeater's. Her standard (there are
others but this one is applicable to THE SECRET DOCTRINE)
nomenclature from lowest to highest is:

1. Stula Sarira
2. Linga Sarira
3. Prana
4. Kama
5. Manas
6. Buddhi
7. Atma


You ask: "Do we exist simultaneously an all the planes of the
solar system simultaneously in the sense that there are
counterparts to our consciousness on other planes even though we
are normally not aware of them when functioning on the first
plane..."

     Our auric envelope extends to the boundaries of our solar
system. "Partak[ing]" of the "goings-on" of the solar planes
beyond the third (if I recall) is beyond the Dhyani Chohan's
abilities, so I would not have much hope for us.

     I'll pass on your fourth and fifth questions for now,
because it would require several pages of definitions concerning
"soul," "ego," "monad,"  "Higher Self," etc. before we could even
begin to discuss these subjects. Another time.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins