[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Globes and Rounds RE: Quotes from MLs RE: Globe/Plane Confusion

Sep 26, 1995 08:55 AM

Thanks to Eldon for posting quotes on globes from MLs and thanks to Jerry S.
for his commentary on Eldon's quotes and commentaries.

A few comments:

(1) Jerry S. seems to make a number of comments which require explication
of underlying ASSUMPTIONS.

 (a) Jerry writes: "We obviously can't leave a principle on each Globe
---there are 12 Globes and only 6 principles. Even looking at HPB's lower
7 Globes, there is still one Globe too many."

Did the quote from MLs or from Eldon indicate that we leave a principle on
each globe???

Where in the ML quotes did it say there are 12 globes?

 (b) Jerry writes: "Here the problem is one of defining the planes ---
I would make the etheric to be upper portions of the physical, and divide
the mental into lower and upper in the manner of AB/CWL to make all of this
business take place on the lower three cosmic planes." Jerry also mentions
the "astral plane".

First of all what are the three cosmic planes? and the other 4 cosmic planes?

Are the etheric, astral mental and causal planes within the sphere of effects
of globe D or.....?

Or how do these planes relate to globe D's sphere of effects?

 (c) Jerry writes: "....our astral components return to the astral plane..."
Is *this* "astral plane" within the sphere of effects of globe D? or is it
somewhere else? Just how does this "astral plane" relate to the physical
world (globe D) and the sphere of effects of Globe D?

Eldon in his ML quotes does NOT give the first time (chronologically speaking)
that the Master speak of the globes, the chain of worlds and the spheres of
causes and effects. This is in ML #9 in the 2nd and 3rd editions of the ML.

Almost 3 pages of text in ML #9 deal with the chain of worlds and the
after death states.

I suggest that these pages need to also be read and studied in order to put
the other ML quotes in better context.

And when Jerry writes: "...our astral components return to the astral
plane..." and I asked Jerry above whether the astral plane is within the
world or sphere of effects of Globe D, I would suggest that Jerry and others
read this passage in Letter 9:

"The lower world of effects is the sphere of such distorted Thoughts; of the
most sensual conceptions, and pictures; of anthropomorphic deities, the
out-creations of their creators, the sensual human minds of people who have
never out-grown thier *brutehood* on earth. Remembering thoughts are things
---have tenacity, coherence, and life---that they are real entities---the
rest will become plain. Disembodied---the creator is attracted naturally
to its creation and creatures; sucked in---by the Maelstrom dug out by his
own hands......."

Is this "lower world of effects" "the sphere of such distorted Thoughts", etc.
the "astral world", Jerry, you are referring to in your own commentary?

does "lower world of effects" = "astral world"?

Why does KH say *lower* world of effects? Is this in contrast to *higher*
world of effects?

(4) Again Jerry writes: "Dhyani-Chohans are spiritual and exist just above
the Abyss." And in his previous post on theos-l, Jerry writes: "When KH says
`....Rupa Loka, Arupa Loka, and Kama-Loka.....'.....he [KH] is not referring
to the after-death states of Kamaloka, but to the four cosmic planes below
the Abyss, and so to the Dhatus...."

What is the Abyss in these two quotations?

Again what are the "four cosmic planes"?

Again, you say "that Rupa Loka, Arupa Loka, and Kama-Loka"
[in that one sentence] has no relation to "the after-death
states of Kama-Loka"? What are your assumptions for this statement?

You say there are in fact a distinction between the "kama-loka" of "Rupa-Loka,
Arupa-Loka and Kama-Loka" and the "kama-loka" of the after death states?

What do you base all of this on? What are your assumptions?

An observation: No wonder, that Jerry and Eldon disagree with each other (I am
assuming that do disagree on several points, possibly several fundamental
points. It seems to me that Eldon is writing with a certain number of
assumptions (like he is on the 17th story of the Eldon building) and Jerry
is wrtiing with a certain number of assumptions (like he is on the 17th
story of the Jerry S. building). Now some of us (outside observers) may
assume they are talking about the same thing??? Or maybe Jerry and Eldon
think they are talking to each other using a common language when in fact
they use the same words but the words have different meanings!

Also what foundations and 16 stories (x 2) underlie what they appear to say
on the surface?!!!???

Are we willing (for purposes of discussion on theos) to go back to the
foundation and in one sense start over? That is, examine with a mental
searchlight ( and maybe also use some intuition too!) the basic premises
about globes, planes, principles, etc.?

I will ask both Eldon and Jerry S ( and others too) where does this
teachings of the globes, etc. *originate* in modern Theosophy?

Where does it first appear in Theosophical literature?

Is it possible (even as an exercise or experiment) to go back to those
original sources and try to see if we (Eldon, Jerry, Dan C, Brenda, Rich, etc.)
can approach these teachings ANEW and see if as a group we can reach a
consensus of understanding, trying to be aware of assumptions (especially
unconscious) ones that we make start to make, etc. etc.?

Both Eldon and Jerry S. have quoted AB/CWL or GdP in their discussions of
globes. Are they filtering the original teaching through these writers?
I'm not saying that these writers are wrong or right, but they did NOT
write the original Theosophical material on the globes, etc.

Is it possible that Eldon and Jerry S. ( and Dan C. too!) could all take
to heart what KH said to A.O. Hume who was trying to understand the
Mahatmas' teachings:

"I tell you plainly you are unfit to learn, for your mind is too full, and
there is not a corner vacant from whence a previous occupant would not
arise, to struggle with and drive away the newcomer."

Could we all have a little too much Hume in us, too!

I also have a series of questions to ask Eldon, but have run out of time
and steam!

And Jerry brings up a good point when he says: "How can this be, when we
were just told above that the sphere of effects is not a locality or place?"

This is in reference to Eldon's comment that "the sphere of effects about our
Globe D has seven classes of dwellers" but in a previous comment Eldon has
said "The worlds of effects are the states of consciousness.....There [these?]
are not a `place' in the sense of something objective, external to our
own subjective states of consciousness."

Now maybe Eldon "means" something other than what Jerry thinks Eldon means.
Exactly what does Eldon mean?

And is the "lower world of effects" (mentioned in letter 9) in Eldon's
"world of effects"? Can a "thought" exist in the "world of effects" as
"something objective, external to our own subjective states of consciousness'?
Can elementals, shells,etc. exist in the "world of effects" as "something
objective, external to our own subjective states of consciousness'?

I personally would like to try to understand the assumptions upon which
Eldon and Jerry S. build their own conceptions of the globes, etc. Can
we explore the foundations and the underlying 16 floor of assumptions that
possibly exist to muddy the water.

Now maybe I am making assumptions about all of this myself!

Daniel Caldwell

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application