Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00521)

Eldon:<I would say the Divine Monad evolves at its own level
and in its own scale of being, much as the Human Monad
does on its scale, the globes of a planetary chain.
Technically, of course, a Monad does not evolve, but
sends forth a ray of conscousness into existence which
evolves.>

This is one area, as we discovered some time ago,
in which we simply have different opinions. To me, your
desire for evolving monads is a natural result of your
desire for meaning in this seemingly-illogical world. Hey,
if it makes you happy to think something perfect can
grow to be more perfect, then fine. I am
not trying to argue with anyone here. Just trying to
say that I see evolution as always opposed by involution.
We live in a dualistic world where everything is polar.
If the Earth is on a "higher subplane" than the moon,
then the Earth too must be evolving, and if everything is
growing and evolving, there must have been an origin point
somewhere in the distant past. The Masters, I think,
realized that origins are big trouble (i.e., God made
it all from nothing or the current Big Bang theory, etc)
and developed the involution-evolution Arcs as a logical way
out of the problem. So if the Arc of Ascent in this
manvantara is longer than the Arc of Descent (which is
what you are saying here, I think) then at some point it
had better balance out, or your theory will have a big
origin problem which has no logical answer. BTW, it seems
to me that the only way the human monad can evolve (Which G
de P has as the Arc of Descent) is if it later involves
(along the Arc of Ascent) like everything else during these
7 Rounds. Our human monads are currently involving. If
you stop to think about it, it seems to me to be illogical
to assume something can involve (G de P uses the phrase
unfoldment from within) more than it starts out with. But
as I say, it sounds to me like you have more faith than logic
(faith is often better than logic anyway). I am more
interested in understanding your position than in arguing, so
if I sound like I am arguing, I am sorry, but I do want
you to see where I am coming from.

Eldon:<Higher than any Monad within is our rootedness in
Mystery, the Unknowable. This is not a Monad or is
there any sense of personal identity or even of things
that participate in existence. It is simply too perfect,
too pure, too absolute. These words, though, are not
really attributes of it, for it is without attribute
as we know it.>

Perhaps this is the crux of my problem trying
to understand your position - you seem to be placing
the divine monad within space-time here. I am placing
it outside. I am equating the "divine monad" with your
"Unknowable" and to me, the divine monad is as high as
it gets. This could well be a large part of my confusion
with your responses. BTW, HPB says "The essential or
supreme Spiritual-Divine Monad is our ultimate source
or root" (CW Vol VII, p. 531 - E.S. Instruction 1) and
then in the list of monads on the same page she calls
the Spiritual-Divine Monad, Atman.

Eldon:<There is an outbreathing and an inbreathing, a going
out of the tide and a coming in of the tide. In this sense,
we have evolution followed by involution, following the
tide into then out of matter. There is also the idea of
a continual unfolding unto completion, when nothing more
simply can be done, and we need to wipe the external slate
clean and start over....etc>

Whoa! Of course I agree with the first, which is
described in the SD. But where did your second model
come from? Not only am I unfamiliar with it, but I can't
follow you at all. What does 'wiping the external slate'
mean?

Eldon:<When we consider that we are rooted in the Divine, we
will always be around to continue our evolution or
existences on one world, then another, with no final
experience as the absolute end to our experience of life.>

Here, at least, I can agree again. I think that
after this manvantara, we will willingly undergo lots more,
but not to "learn" anything or to "grow" in the time-restricted
sense in which we understand the term
evolution. Rather, we will do so out of the sheer joy
that such self-expression brings to us, much like a painter
will continue painting even after completing a masterwork.

Elson:<The goal of evolution is not to try to somehow convert
the mortal part into the immortal, it is to "dance the dance
of life". >

God, Eldon. Everytime I think I am beginning to
understand you, you drop a bomb on me and mess up my mind.
This sentence is exactly what I have been saying all along,
while you (I thought) were taking the more serious approach
of learning and progressing and evolving into better and
more perfect monads and stuff. Now I am really confused.

Jerry S.