Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00309)

Patrick:

>The seven ray qualification is a completely accurate idea about the
>nature of reality and is supported by the writings of HPB and others.

The idea of the seven rays was one that I studied when reading Leadbeater,
and I understand that it's taught in Bailey's writings too. I left it
behind when I started studying Purucker and Judge. I would classify the
idea, along with that of group souls and of soul mates, as misconceptions
where unnecessary and artificial distinctions are made, without regard
to the eternal nature of the Monad.

>>The idea that somehow in our essence, in our inmost beings, we've come
>>from seven different cookie cutters or belong to one of seven primal
>>groups, is wrong.

>In an absolute essence we are all divine sparks but the Monad itself is
>in manifestation in a cosmic sense and is qualified by one of the three
>aspects of Diety.

When we come into existence, we are qualified by all aspects of the
world we're in, all it's cosmic principles, like it's Mahat having an
affect on our Manas, it's Fohat on our Kama, etc. We're not the offspring
of a single principle of the heavenly man.

>The sevenfold qualification occurs also at all levels of manifestation.

We are, I'd say, qualified in a sevenfold way. Each of our seven principles
draws upon the storehouse of nature, drawing to itself what is appropriate,
what is its own, what belongs to it (e.g. our Skandhas).

It is possible to say that we're centered, perhaps in kama-manas. That is
one of the priciples. But we shouldn't call the seven principles as rays,
and say that "we're on the kama-manasic ray". That's because we're active
in all seven principles. All are necessary ingredients of conscious
existence, and we could not exist as fully-manifest beings without something
of each of them.

When we say that we're centered in kama-manas, that means that kama-manas
is our seat of consciousness, it is the prime mover or initiator of causes
or center of action in our consciousness. Our focus of awareness may be
in that principle, and so our motivation and initiation of action arises
out of it. But we're not "on that ray".

>In relation to human evolution and identity all spiritual and
>personal aspects are qualified by the three and the seven rays.
>"As above, so below."

We *are qualified* by these influences. But not by a single one, but by
all of them. The Solar energies come to us through the Seven Sacred
Planets, and from them as influences to the seven globes of our chain,
on which we experience those respective qualities as the *keynote* of
manifest activity. (Even though the influence of a Sacred Planet predominates
on a particular Globe, the influences of all the rest are still present
and active.)

>The essential nature is always pure.

Agreed. And we do not belong to any ray. We are not subject to this influence
or that influence depending upon which ray we happen to belong to. We are
subject to all influences and build and master our own temperaments.
Depending upon our level of awakening, we could belong to one "ray", to
two or three "rays", or perhaps all seven "rays", as we live out the various
qualities of consciousness.

The biggest problem that I have at the moment with the idea of the seven
rays is that we "belong to a ray". We don't belong to anything, and are
only subject to the quality of consciousness and swabhava or individual
nature of the world or universe into which we find birth.

>Ray qualification is also from individual development on different
>levels in ages past. Rays can and do shift and change according to
>personal evolution.

The closest thing that I'd find to "shifting a ray" would be when we
move from rebirth on Globe D to rebirth on Globe E, under the influence
of a different Sacred Planet.

>The inner man is also associated with the seven aspects of Diety --
>depending on the evolutionary needs of the time. The interaction of inner
>and outer ray influences is like the interaction of the different influences
>of an astrology chart.

I tend to find no need for the idea of rays, since our qualities of
consciousness is already better defined in terms of the seven principles.
Talking about the rays sounds, to me, like trying to put people into
categories for trying to understand them, like in astrology saying that
"you're a virgo, so you're such and such a way". The categories are a
mental construct and not a metaphysical reality.

When I write the above, I expect you to disagree with me, beause Bailey
uses the idea of the seven rays throughout her writings, and you accept
her as an authority and spokeswoman for the Masters. From that standpoint,
you'd be inclined to accept everything she says on an equal basis -- as
true -- and seek to defend any portion of it that was disagreed with.

>From my standpoint, Bailey is not a representative of the Masters, but
a channeller receiving materials from the astral light of mixed quality
and accuracy. I'd feel free to pick and choose from what she said
what I would find true or disagree with. (I'm not trying here to get you
to rethink your position towards Bailey, only to describe our respective
positions towards her materials, which may qualify how we approach a
discussion of the seven rays.)

In friendly disgreement,

Eldon