Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00400)

Rich:< Planes are just grades of matter.>
 Thank you for this wonderful (and surprising)
information. Until now I had thought them a bit more
than that.

Rich:<The statement "at the end of each manvantara
.. Perhaps we will find ourselves on a higher
subplane" has no meaning.>
 If you had been reading my postings with manas
instead of kama, you would have realized that this is
exactly what I have been trying to say. "at the end
of each manvantara perhaps we will find ourselves on a
higher subplane" is a theosophical notion that I
object to as being against all evidence, against all
experience, and a product of the human desire for
meaning when none is needed. G de P, unfortunately,
champions this idea, and who am I to gainsay G de P?
Believe what you like, I am only giving out some
ideas for everyone to think about.

Rich:< The souls do not have individual existence at
the end of a manvantara, but merge into the great One
Life, which does not exist at all, on any plane or
grade, let alone sub-planes. It is Be-ness, behind
all existence.>
 If you really believe this kind of stuff, then I
think I will ignore further postings on this subject,
and spend my time on something more productive. I
have to agree with you that souls have no individual
existence at the end of a manvantara simply because
they have no individual existence now either. I
think you have taken Arnold's Light of Asia way too
literally, Rich. His picture of millions of souls
dissipating into Beness like drops of water entering
the ocean, etc. etc. makes good copy, but has lousy
content. BTW, Rich, Beness as defined by HPB does
exist and it does so on the first plane - that of
divinity. What do you think the first (highest)
cosmic plane is? Your statements are so terribly
dualistic and your logic is so confounded that I
can't really say more.

I can't tell if you are simply new to theosophy,
or are deliberately trying to agitate me. Your
postings are not in the spirit of friendly dialog,
and you keep quoting scripture out of context
without understanding what you are saying but
rather you imply that you have been there and
seen for yourself what the truth is and that I
simply need to do some refresh-reading to see
the light. If you are new, then I will bear with
you yet awhile. But if not, then as far as I am
concerned, you will hear no more from me on this
subject until you are ready to carry out a more
logical discourse.

It seems to me that there are few theosophists
on theos-l who understand what the Globes really
are. Alan is one, because he knows what the
Sepheroth (ala Globes) are from his own
personal experience. I am not saying that I
am "right" and everyone else is "wrong" here.
I am, however, saying that so far I have not
seen much logic or insight to HPB's model
of our planetary chain of globes from anyone,
but rather on the contrary, all I get is a lot
of theosophical scriptural quotations. Eldon
is the sole exception, and at least he has
formed a working model of the Globes, even
if I don't agree with it. We need to either
rationally discuss this subject to arrive
at working models (differences are certainly
accepted, and expected, but so long as they
work, who cares?) or lets forget it and begin
discussing something else. My main objective
to all this is to get people to think about
these things, especially the Globes, which
are supposed to form the cornerstone of a
new "western occultism." Someday in the
future, HPB's model will be considered equal
or superior to the Tree of Life, IMHO (I
already consider it so). But how are we to
do this, if there is so little understanding
or agreement at the very outset between us?

 Jerry S.