Re: To Eldon
Sep 14, 1995 08:43 AM
by Eldon B. Tucker
>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.
Technically, the Divine, Spiritual, Human, Animal, etc. Monads
don't evolve. They remain in their state of perfection. What
evolves is the "ray of conscousness" that they project into
the evolutionary scheme of existence.
The higher Monads are named differently depending upon what
scale of being that they participate in (e.g. the lower Human
Monad on the scale of a Globe, the higher Human Monad on the
scale of a Planetary Chain, the Spiritual Monad on the scale
of a solar system, etc.)
A further distinction is made depending upon which *stream of
evolution* that they participate in. They are called "Gods" when
they participate in the stream of the architects, "Monads" as
builders, and "Atoms" as materials. We're really, of course,
referring to their *rays* that participate in one of these
streams of evolution.
>I am not trying to argue with anyone here. Just trying to
>say that I see evolution as always opposed by involution.
We have two models to describe things by. One is as a process
of "going out" then of "coming back". The other is as of
working through to completion of a work of creation, followed
by its end and the start of a new work. If we look at the life
of a man, we can see both happening. From one standpoint, there
is a growing interest and level of activity in life, reaching its
apex in middle age, then declining in old age. This is the process
of the outer man, subject to age and death. The other process is
a continued growth of consciousness and inner experience, a growth
that can continue right up to the end of life. This is a "filling
to completion" rather than a "filling then emptying".
>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.
Every living and growing thing has, as a particular thing, a
origin point. But it came from a previous existence of the
life behind it. And there was no first such existence. Time is
as infinite into the past and it is into the future.
> 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.
Origins apply to particular instances of things, to this
finite thing or that finite thing. Our known universe, for
instance, as a finite beginning and a finite end. And then
it will disappear. But after a period time, it'll be back again.
>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)
Not with the moon. It died on its own subplane. What we have
on our cosmic subplane is its *fossil*. The living substance
is gone, replaced long ago by "inert matter" of this plane.
There is a sense of a kamarupa to it, since the image in
the astral light is preserved, and there is likely, I'd assume,
some lingering images in its astral light of things that had
existed on it.
>then at some point it
>had better balance out, or your theory will have a big
>origin problem which has no logical answer.
There are always bigger cycles to contain the ones that we
know. When we see things going up, they had to have gone done
in some earlier time period.
> 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
My idea is that its ray or human ego continues its evolution
to the very end. I would not call the change of emphasis from
seeking the material in the earlier Rounds to seeking the
spiritual in later Rounds as evolution followed by involution.
Why? Because there is an continual unfoldment of faculties of
consciousness the whole time. Additional iterations are made
in life, we don't start "uniterating" in the Fourth Round, to
undo them until we come back to our orgin in our first iteration
by the end of the Seventh Round.
>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.
I would avoid the word "involving" because I think it may
>But as I say, it sounds to me like you have more faith than logic
>(faith is often better than logic anyway).
I find the position that I've taken as logical and satisfying
in my own thinking. Some of what I say that you interpret as
confused is just where I disagree with your model, and you are
attempting to interpreting what I say as though it fit in with
that model. Perhaps we'll just have to settle on the fact that
for now, at least, we are working with different models of
the globe chains.
>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.
Good. I don't mind hearing about yours as well. We just need
to remain polite and come in with our alternate theories at
times, rather than come in with any attempt to point out the
>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 the Divine Monad with any other Monad, just
outside space and time, but looking down upon it, and
entering into relationship with it. The only thing that
distinguishes a Divine Monad from any other is the particular
scale of being in which its ray of consciousness exists in.
>I am placing
>it outside. I am equating the "divine monad" with your
>"Unknowable" and to me, the divine monad is as high as
Here's a difference. I would put the Unknowable higher than
*any* Monad, of whatever type, because it goes beyond
direct participation in time, which is an attribute of the
>This could well be a large part of my confusion
>with your responses.
Yes, because I make no qualitative distinction between
one Monad and another.
>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.
There's a lot of things to comment on in that quote.
As our source or root, it is the highest Monad *that we
know of* in our constitution, but we are the human Monads,
and are directly our own source.
The Divine Monad functions at the atmic level, the Spiritual
at the buddhic, the higher Human Monad at the buddhi-manasic,
the lower Human Monad at the kama-manasic, etc. Each Monad
has its own level that it functions at.
>>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'
Like when a person dies, the human personality has reached
an end to its growth, and will, in time, be rebuilt afresh
in a new lifetime. This follows the analogy of writing an
article, finishing it, then starting anew with a blank sheet
of paper. It is another model of unfoldment that I'd suggest
applies in certain ways in life.
>>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.
It depends upon your model of cycles and infinity how our
learning can be retained. Consider the analogy of a clock.
Each time the second hand has gone around, it is starting
afresh, with nothing retained *at its level* on the next
time around. But the minute hand has moved a notch. In a
deeper part of ourselves there is an evolution. And when
the minute hand has gone completely around, the hour hand
has but moved a notch. And as we look upward within, until
we can see no further, there are deeper and deeper parts of
us that "retain" the experiences that were apparently lost
in the lower parts.
>Eldon:<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.
Isn't this fun?
Both views are true at the same time. It depends upon which
mode of consciousness that we are in the perspective we take.
We can identify with the "second hand" and be dancing the
dance again, without any residuals from the past. Or we can
identify with the "higher hands" and be aware of the forward
sweep of things.
It is the same as with the kayas. We can in nirmanakaya be
clearly aware of the distinction of subject and object. In
samboghakaya we merge with the object and are blissfully aware
of oneness with everything and everyone in the particular
situation we are participating in. Or in nirmanakaya we
merge with the root of life and are no longer aware of being
in a particular situation. Which viewpoint is real? They *all
are* and they all exist at every moment in time. It's just,
that *for us*, as particular beings experiencing life, we
view things through that perspective with which we momentarily
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application