Theos-Talk Archives (April 1997 Message tl00097)

Wildefire@aol.com wrote:
> 
> OK, time for me to delurk, no longer able to resist participating in such a
> fascinating thread. ;-D When I read those passages in AAB years ago about
> lesser evolved races, I was discomfited to read them and remain objective.
> However, I decided that surely she (and the Tibetan) did *not* mean that all
> members of the so-called "lesser evolved races" are indeed less evolved
> souls.

	If you read HPB in the Secret Doctrine, you will see that while she
tends to be cryptic in places, it is clear in the totality that the
evolution of the shells of humanity (i.e. our bodies) and the human
monads did not parallel each other. And evolution is not a ladder; it's
a tree. When you read the physical descriptions of the root races, if
you assume that their shells were our physical anscestors, you
completely ignore the laws of physics. And to say that the laws of
physics are incorrect and your (or Bailey's) personal interpretation of
The Secret Doctrine is correct is to fall into the trap of
fundamentalism. And if you choose to give me some postmodernist
explanation about the laws of physics being incorrect, especially if you
give me the "Male Eurocentric" crap, then you are saying that Truth is
determined by the ego (which you are certainly free to believe, but I
would think would be a rather controversial point of view in
Theosophical circles, to say the least).

> I think that the key to this entire quandry about races, socio-economic
> levels, lusty sex, etc. is that the soul (usually?) incarnates, IMHO, into
> whatever circumstances are required for its ongoing development and into a
> set of vehicles that are vibrating at right frequency for its point in
> evolution at conception. 

	Certainly a reasonable point of view, and within the mainstream of
Theosophical thought.


> the causal body itself is destroyed, IMHO. The genetic parents in this
> scenario mainly provide the external set of circumstances that the
> incarnating soul has to experience in the three worlds. Thus a highly evolved
> soul (e.g., Martin Luther King) could easily incarnate into one of the
> <groan> "lesser evolved" races to perform a given task and this probably
> happens more often than we may think. 

	Assuming that there ARE "lesser evolved" races.



> Another factor that I believe governs
> where or into what type of body a soul incarnates into is karma. Being that
> karma often involves other souls, the process of discharging a karmic
> relationship may require incarnation into a particular race, etc. to put the
> soul into proximity with the souls with whom it has karmic relationships. But
> this isn't necessarily limited to discharging karma involving other souls but
> involves learning other karmic lessons as well. It is quite possible that a
> particularly urgent karmic lesson can only best be learned by incarnating in
> a specific place at a specific time and that this may at times override race,
> socio-economic status, etc.

	Also, it is important not to fall into the trap that, if one has karma
coming to them, then another has the right to inflict the karma (in
Christian literature, I believe the key lesson of the fate of Judas is
to show that the opposite is in fact true; although Jesus had to be
crucified, Judas still had the choice not to betray him, and chose to
betray him anyway. That act had its own karmic consequences for Judas,
independent of the necessity of Judas' actions). Blavatsky writes, quite
to the contrary, that, when dealing with those who have been hit by
harmful karma we should think of ourselves as doctors in a prison; we
cannot release people from their karma, but we can and should act to
minimize their suffering.

> If, at any time in the 5th root race, anthropological race could be
> associated with a particular level of evolution, we are rapidly passing that
> point if we haven't already done so, IMHO. When AAB said that lesser evolved
> souls were born of sexual unions that were solely for the point of
> gratification, she may have been referring to the entire set of circumstances
> surrounding the lives of the parents and into which the soul would incarnate
> vs. the actual vehicles through which the soul would have to express itself.

	Or she was looking for a reason to continue social norms of thumbing
noses at children born out of wedlock.

> IOW, it's rather logical to assume that people who copulate merely in
> response to animal instincts are not as likely to provide an incoming soul
> with an environment enabling easy expression of its higher qualities,
> regardless of the quality of vehicles it spun. However, that does not
> necessarily preclude a more highly evolved soul from specifically selecting
> those circumstances as I discussed above. Furthermore, unless a soul is far
> along on the Path and is actively attempting to accelerate the discharge of
> its remaining karma, it is not likely that it will attempt to express all of
> its qualities to the fullest extent of their development in one particular
> incarnation anyway, IMHO.

	Certainly a better statement than Bailey's.

> I agree that the frequency of purely lust-driven unions is attracting a large
> number of lesser evolved souls prematurely into incarnation and that it does
> cause problems. 

	What problems? And how do we cure them, by sending the "lesser evolved"
souls prematurely to their next incarnation? Note which one of
Blavatsky's students the Mahatma's said was the most advanced,
evolutionarily speaking.

> I think the major source of the gnarliness of this whole issue is that we are
> trying to make sense of it at the level of the personality from where we
> cannot see of the relevant karmic relationships/necessities nor determine the
> actual point in evolution of all of the souls involved.

	Exactly. Then what is the reason to suppose that certain actions by the
parents can allow one to pass judgement on the children? In all
probability, to give onesself the moral license to do so.

	Bart Lidofsky