Theos-Talk Archives (December 1993 Message tl00091)

To Eldon.  You wrote:

<One comment for now regarding pathways between various globes,
different that an serial progression (e.g. A to B to C ...). I'll
just draw an analogy for now. If you go from Buddhi to Kama, did
you pass through Manas on the way, or is there a direct link? As
major principles, you pass through them, one to the next. But
there is a quality of each in the other, so there is Buddhi-Kama
and Kama-Buddhi as subprincipls, in which the qualities are
unified. Is this unified nature of the qualities a bridge, or if
not, what would we consider it? >

My comments.  Somewhere HPB writes (and I agree) that you can't
pass any planes coming down from spirit or going up from matter.
I forget exactly where she says this, but it struck me profoundly
at the time I read it, and I never forgot it.  You can't skip a
plane.  This has a lot of ramifications.  For one thing, it means
that all physical things are alive and have a soul (ie.,
everything is sevenfold, albeit not fully developed on this
physical plane at this time.)  So, to answer your question, yes,
you must pass through Manas and no, there is no "direct link."

I would say that yes, the "unified nature of the qualities" is a
sort of bridge.  It is based on the old occult principle of
"wheels within wheels" described by Ezekiel and others.  It
reflects the fact that we are each a microcosm of the macrocosm.
Just as each plane can be divided into 7 subplanes, so each of
our "bodies" has 7 principles.

I look forward to discussing the subject of the globes, because
while much has already been given out, there is still a lot of
information that has been withheld.  For example, the
evolutionary passages of lifewaves through the globes has been
pretty well described in theosophical literature.  But you will
find almost nothing at all on pathworking.  The fact that
pathworking is a magical operation is doubtless why nothing has
been said, although this can't be the whole of it.  Leadbeater,
for example, goes to rather great lengths to describe the astral
and mental planes (which he surely visited via magic or yoga),
but never links them to the globes.  Was this an oversight, or a
deliberate omission?.  Why describe the planes and not the
globes, which, as you pointed out, are where we are localized on
each plane?  Was Leadbeater writing about the globes without
being aware of it?  Why was G de P so reluctant to describe a
globe?  He presented their planetary and Zodiac attributions and
then fell silent.  Should theosophists remain silent, or is it
time to say something about the globes, especially about the
lower ones which we inhabit all the time (as Don has so
elequently described) and yet have no awareness or memory?

                                     Jerry S.