Re: Globes and Rounds RE: Quotes from MLs RE: Globe/Plane Confusion
Sep 26, 1995 11:31 PM
by Eldon B. Tucker
>(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
Not with my reading. My understanding is that we leave the six lower
principles in their respective places in the Globe D's sphere of effects.
>Where in the ML quotes did it say there are 12 globes?
The scheme of 12 globes, principles, etc. is extensively written about by
Purucker. I'm don't off hand remember reading it written about by Purucker.
>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.
The chronological sequence is important if we consider the ideas as changing
over time, where we would need to know the time period when a particular
passage was written. How is it important to our discussion?
>does "lower world of effects" = "astral world"?
We read in the quotes that the earth's sphere of effects has various
levels or areas to it, and one is for the kamaloka, another for the devachan.
The term "area" is misleading, thought, since it implies a place, and we
are not in existence as we would think of it, but are in a subjective state
of consciousness, and not in objective interaction with other beings.
>Why does KH say *lower* world of effects? Is this in contrast to *higher*
>world of effects?
The lower worlds refer to the effects or unspent energies of our lower
principles, the higher ones refer to the energies of our higher principles.
>Again, you [Jerry S] 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
These lokas are the "places" if we can use such a term for the subjective
states within the sphere of effects.
>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).
We can both talk from our vantage point, and from contructing another
structure, from the ground up. Perhaps you will feel more comfortable
in that one. I'm happy to have a Purucker floor or two, and don't feel
that it is inconsistent with a HPB floor. You may choose to skip floors
of that type. It will be interesting to see how far up, in stories, we
can go, before finding points of difference.
>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!
It's possible. With further discussion, we may find ourselves coming to
closer agreement, as well as identifying more clearly where the differences
exist. Some of my Purucker floors may come from "Fundamentals of the
Esoteric Philosophy" and "The Dialogues of G. de Purucker." If there are
some missing girders or faulty wriing, I'd like to know about them.
You may choose to exclude Purucker in your building, but that does not ban
me from using "Purucker parts" in my construction, as long as there's
truth in labelling, where I don't claim that a particular building is
>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.?
Fine, for the Blavatsky building or mental contruct of the Globe Chains.
But that's alongside any comments we may make regarding our overall
understanding or views on the subject, from our own thought and studies.
>I will ask both Eldon and Jerry S ( and others too) where does this
>teachings of the globes, etc. *originate* in modern Theosophy?
If by "originate" you mean first appeared in contemporary literature, I
really could not say. If by "originate" you mean when the idea first
occurred to someone, it would have to be back in the Third Race when the
light of mind first was given to humanity, and we were first taught something
about the nature of life and the world in which we exist.
>Where does it first appear in Theosophical literature?
This would only matter if the first person to write about it came up with
the idea, and others copied and elaborated upon it. It would not matter if
the idea was presented, as taught by the Masters, by several of their
representatives at different times.
>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.?
I'm glad to take a fresh look, but won't discount Purucker as an authority
for my own exposition of Theosophy, apart from this exercise in HPB's
presentation of the Teachings.
>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?
Yes, to the extent we consider one or both as speaking for the Masters
in exactly the same way as HPB did.
>I'm not saying that these writers are wrong or right, but they did NOT
>write the original Theosophical material on the globes, etc.
Agreed that they were not the first people to write in the West on the
ideas. We may disagree on where individual writers arrived at what they
wrote on. If Blavatsky wrote on reincarnation and karma, and if we can
show that people wrote about reincarnation and karma before her, does that
mean her ideas are derived from these earlier writings?
>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
>"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."
We need to take a fresh look at things. That means that we're willing to
take the chance that as we think them through anew, we may arrive at different
conclusions than before. I'm willing to give it a try. Are you also open to
set aside what you currently accept if you find things that suggest that the
Globe Chains are different that you currently conceive of?
>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
If they require citation searching, I really cannot respond except during
evenings or weekends.
>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?"
It is, *for us*, but perhaps not so for the elementals and Dhyani-Chohans,
which reside there.
>I personally would like to try to understand the assumptions upon which
>Eldon and Jerry S. build their own conceptions of the globes, etc.
For our current views, apart from the simplier presentation we may give
based upon a book in a study session, our assumptions are best arrived at
by taking our ideas, and breaking them apart into their basic elements.
That is how we can answer the question, for a personal view, "Why do I
think this?" We can only partially reconstruct our viewpoint by going back
and looking up some of the quotes that we may have read ten, twenty, or
thirty years ago.
>Can we explore the foundations and the underlying 16 floor of assumptions that
>possibly exist to muddy the water.
There are two kinds of foundations. There are the key ideas that compose
what we think. And there are the key references that we can find to build
an "earthquake proof" structure upon. We should explore both ideas, but
be careful to distinguish between the two.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application