Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tl00211)

 BART :

Recently, I have stated that it is my opinion that the reason the TS
was formed was to speed the evolution of humanity as a whole, and to
create an atmosphere where seed groups could be created that might
become Adepts in the next millenium or two. As many have drawn incorrect
conclusions from my statement, I figured that I should make myself
clearer.

	First of all, some terminology: I am not using the term "Master" as the
level of reverentialness in many TS groups has altered the meaning from
master of an area of knowledge/skill to one who must be obeyed. Also, I
use the term "Mahatma(s)" to refer to the specific group of Adepts with
whom Blavatsky et al communicated. But they themselves said that they
were not the only group of Adepts around (this is often forgotten; I
think one of the problems with the St. Germaine controversy is that, if
St. Germaine was an Adept, he was probably a member of a different group
than the Mahatmas. Therefore the pro and anti's may BOTH be right).
Finally, I'm going to be a little simplistic on my definition of
"monad"; for the purpose of this, it will be defined as a consciousness
that is self-aware, which is why you can have monads within monads, and,
of course, the one Monad (which will be distinguished by the
capitalization of the "M").

	Now, how does one become an Adept? The TS concentrates on the concept
of "chelas"; if the Adepts think you have the right potential, they will
take you in as a student, and, if you can reach the right level of
whatever is necessary, you can join them. But that leaves an interesting
question: how did the groups start in the first place? And what makes
them Adepts? Here are my theories; please don't send the men in white
coats and butterfly nets.

	First of all, the process of evolution is slow and painstaking. Every
time you're born in a new body, you have to re-learn a whole bunch of
stuff over again. But if you don't die, there are some things you may
never learn. One way around this is if a group could form a group monad.
Members can enter or leave the group, but the group monad lives on, and
can continue to evolve, provided that the individual members allow it to
do so. The members are still individuals, however. They are not always
attached to the group monad; if they were, then the evolution of the
group monad would be blocked.

	There are, demonstrably, groups with at least the beginnings of such a
group monad around today. A well-known example would be encounter
groups, formed for the psychological health of the members. While the
individuals have problems, the idea is that, by shedding their mental
shields with each other, they can combine their strengths to help each
other out.

	Recently, I have stated that it is my opinion that the reason the TS
was formed was to speed the evolution of humanity as a whole, and to
create an atmosphere where seed groups could be created that might
become Adepts in the next millenium or two. As many have drawn incorrect
conclusions from my statement, I figured that I should make myself
clearer.

	First of all, some terminology: I am not using the term "Master" as the
level of reverentialness in many TS groups has altered the meaning from
master of an area of knowledge/skill to one who must be obeyed. Also, I
use the term "Mahatma(s)" to refer to the specific group of Adepts with
whom Blavatsky et al communicated. But they themselves said that they
were not the only group of Adepts around (this is often forgotten; I
think one of the problems with the St. Germaine controversy is that, if
St. Germaine was an Adept, he was probably a member of a different group
than the Mahatmas. Therefore the pro and anti's may BOTH be right).
Finally, I'm going to be a little simplistic on my definition of
"monad"; for the purpose of this, it will be defined as a consciousness
that is self-aware, which is why you can have monads within monads, and,
of course, the one Monad (which will be distinguished by the
capitalization of the "M").

	Now, how does one become an Adept? The TS concentrates on the concept
of "chelas"; if the Adepts think you have the right potential, they will
take you in as a student, and, if you can reach the right level of
whatever is necessary, you can join them. But that leaves an interesting
question: how did the groups start in the first place? And what makes
them Adepts? Here are my theories; please don't send the men in white
coats and butterfly nets.

	First of all, the process of evolution is slow and painstaking. Every
time you're born in a new body, you have to re-learn a whole bunch of
stuff over again. But if you don't die, there are some things you may
never learn. One way around this is if a group could form a group monad.
Members can enter or leave the group, but the group monad lives on, and
can continue to evolve, provided that the individual members allow it to
do so. The members are still individuals, however. They are not always
attached to the group monad; if they were, then the evolution of the
group monad would be blocked.

	There are, demonstrably, groups with at least the beginnings of such a
group monad around today. A well-known example would be encounter
groups, formed for the psychological health of the members. While the
individuals have problems, the idea is that, by shedding their mental
shields with each other, they can combine their strengths to help each
other out.

	Now, to digress, for a moment, let's take a look at one of the major
problems of our current time: super-bacteria. Before the discovery of
anti-biotics, bacterial infection was a serious matter. People could and
often did catch gangrene and/or die from what would be considered today

Keith Price:  Not to respond directly, because I am not accusing you, Bart, of 
anything.  But this idea of group monad brings back question in the back of my 
mind, specifically the idea of group monad.  We are told that there is a MANU, 
as seed father for each race.  We are supposed to have a 5th race Manu.  Then 
we have the unstated idea that racial groups may or may not have a group 
monad.  Hitler of course, chose to think such a thing existed and took many 
ideas and vocabulary from the theosophical (with a small T) literature and 
speculations.

I am open.  I believe that the idea of monad(S) is kind of an oxymoron.  How 
can you have individualites that return to one ROOT SOUCE Mulaprakriti?  I 
like the image of the sparks of one Flame, but poetry can justify anything, 
believe me I know.

I am really interested in seeing Seven Years In Tibet.  I heard it wasn't 
really deeply spiritual, but the idea of a Nazi in Tibet... truth is stranger 
than fiction!
Has anyone seen it?
Namaste
Keith Price