Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00440)

Jerry S:

>Eldon:<I would describe the sweep of evolution as going from (1) homogeneous
>unity, to (2) hetrogeneous disunity and apparent chaos and individualism,
> returning to (3) heterogeneous unity. A return from (2) to (1) would be
>regressive rather than a completion of the evolutionary sweep. We continue to
>individualize as we return to a new form of unity that allows our growing
>differences of self-expression to cooperatively harmonize.

>I see the whole thing as a vast cycle with evolution on the downward Arc of
>Descent, and involution on the upward Arc of Ascent. I would say that your
>(1) is, in fact, also a heterogenous unity, although I can't even imagine
>what a "heterogeneous unity" would be. It would appear to be a contradiction
>of terms (a paradox, no doubt).

What I'm describing is that during an entire cycle of evolution, we are
evolving forth forms to express ourselves. By the midpoint of the evolution,
we reach the bottom or turning point, and our energies then focus upward.

In the first half of evolution, we are "matter bound," seeking increasing
concrete material expression. By the halfway point, we've established ourselves
on the lowest plane that we will be on, and our attention turns inwards.
We continue to develope our external forms on all the planes, to grow and
evolve more expressive manners of expressing our lives. But *in our
consciousness* we are striving upwards again, until at the end, we have,
while fully manifest on all the planes, achieved *while in manifest form*
the same consciousness that we had before we began our descent.

I don't see the physical forms loosing their distinct nature as we evolve
past the midpoint, the turning point, when we again seek the spiritual
in an evolutionary cycle. What we do is to raise our awareness, so that
we become less and less focused in the physical body and human personality,
and we move *the seat of consciousness* up the principles, one at a time,
until it is again firmly rooted in Atman again.

Perhaps (1) and (3) are both homogenous and
>heterogenous depending on how you want to look at it (?). Whatever the
>case, I can't see how (1) can possibly differ from (3).

In terms of chaos, I'd say that as we undergo repeated iterations,
we find increasing complexity arising. There is not a point when we
start undoing the interations, they continue up to the end.

The descent into matter and the reascent into spirit is really the
first building up of forms on all the planes, suitable rays of the
consciousness of the Monad, then the growing of consciousness in and
through those forms. We don't, I'd think, build them up for half the
time, then tear them down the other half. Rather, we build them up,
going as low on the planes as our tanha or desire for life takes us,
then we spend the remainder of the time enfilling them with our
consciousness.

>But I know that this
>particular thought (which seems to give the whole peregrination business some
>kind of deep progress) is cherished by many theosophists including G de P
>(with whom I seldom take exception). This notion (which I have to assume
>comes from an ignorance of what "outside space-time" means) tells us that at
>the end of each manvantara, we are "higher" than when we started.

There is a part of us that is outside space and time. That part is
still essentially "us", but unchanging. It acts as an eternal ideal
that is the driving force during our evolutionary experiences. We
strive to regain what it is and never has lost. We periodically
descent into existence and then are driven by this motivating force.
After a time, our evolution ceases for a while, and we withdraw into
our perfect natures, tiring of the limitation of existence. But then
we get "hungry" again, and reappear into manifestation.

>Perhaps we
>will find ourselves on a higher subplane, but how this fits in with
>spacelessness and timelessness I can't imagine. Perhaps Eldon can answer
>this question: Is our manvantaric progess an evolution or an involution?

The terms "evolution" and "involution" mean going out or going back in again.
We have both types of cycles happening at once. If I remember it right,
in terms of cosmic subplanes, in a planetary manvantara, the cycle is
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 -- a progression outward. And with cosmic
subsubplanes, we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1 -- a progression outwards then
back in again. Both types of cycles are happening at different levels of
being. In one since, every step of the way is "evolution"; in the other
sense we have "evolution" followed by "involution". Which way does it
work? It depends upon which scale we are talking about.

> This kind of a legitimite question cannot be answered, because there is no
>answer. For every involution there must be a corresponding involution
>somewhere. I don't think that theosophists have fully thought this one out.

One variation on this question is: Are we any closer to absolute perfection
now that we were at the start of the Surya Manvantara, at the beginning of
the life of Brahma, about 150 trillion years ago? The answer would have to
be "no", because there is no way for conditioned existence to get "closer"
to the absolute or unconditioned.

> Perhaps the early theosophical writers were just echoed the human desire for
>some kind of an objective or meaning to a manvantara. My own belief is that
>we do it to express ourselves because self-expression is an inherent divine
>quality, and we simply need no other reason. But, perhaps I am being too
>mystical here, and so I won't fault anyone who wants to think that
>manvantaras are spiral.

In conditioned existence, they are "spiral". The second hand of the clock
complete a cycle, and the minute hand has moved forward a notch. It is
only when we step outside of conditioned time that the sense of "spiral"
dissapears and we experience pure durtion.

But I do want to let everyone know that I, at least,
>think that they are cyclical, the circle being the ancient symbol for
>existence, not the spiral.

The descriptions that we use are valuable for discussion certain points.
No few paragraphs that any of us may write, though, completely reveal
the truth.

-- Eldon