Metaphysics in Theosophy

Ecumenist

Ecumenist

Well-Known Member
Messages
120
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
North America
Sometimes, it is helpful to revisit what one of the greatest esotericsts had to say on certain topics ... in this case, one without whom there might be no modern occultism, or what many of us know as White Magic.

The following excerpt includes the seven ślokas of Stanza Seven, of the Stanzas of Dzyan (from which all we know of today as `Zen' has derived, and much else in modern religion, both eastern and western).

I decided not to wait until 7pm to post it.

Anyway, when read with the Intuition, with as much recollection of our studies as we may be fortunate enough to have had, a realization should come to the mind of the student.

STANZA VII.
1. Behold the beginning of sentient formless life.

First the Divine, the one from the Mother-Spirit; then the Spiritual; the three from the one, the four from the one, and the five from which the three, the five, and the seven. These are the three-fold, the four-fold downward; the “mind-born” sons of the first Lord; the shining seven.

It is they who are thou, me, him, oh Lanoo. They, who watch over thee, and thy mother earth.

2. The one ray multiplies the smaller rays. Life precedes form, and life survives the last atom of form. Through the countless rays proceeds the life-ray, the one, like a thread through many jewels.

3. When the one becomes two, the threefold appears, and the three are one; and it is our thread, oh Lanoo, the heart of the man-plant called Saptasarma [Saptaparna].

4. It is the root that never dies; the three-tongued flame of the four wicks. The wicks are the sparks, that draw from the three-tongued flame shot out by the seven — their flame — the beams and sparks of one moon reflected in the running waves of all the rivers of earth.

5. The spark hangs from the flame by the finest thread of Fohat. It journeys through the Seven Worlds of Maya. It stops in the first, and is a metal and a stone; it passes into the second and behold — a plant; the plant whirls through seven changes and becomes a sacred animal. From the combined attributes of these, Manu, the thinker is formed. Who forms him? The seven lives, and the one life. Who completes him? The five-fold Lha. And who perfects the last body? Fish, sin, and soma. . . . .

6. From the first-born the thread between the Silent Watcher and his Shadow becomes more strong and radiant with every change. The morning sun-light has changed into noon-day glory. . . . .

7. This is thy present wheel, said the Flame to the Spark. Thou art myself, my image, and my shadow. I have clothed myself in thee, and thou art my Vahan to the day, “Be with us,” when thou shalt re-become myself and others, thyself and me. Then the builders, having donned their first clothing, descend on radiant earth and reign over men — who are themselves.​
The 5th śloka describes the same procession as familiar to anyone who knows the Zohar, as also the Code of Manu, and in fact, all esoteric portions of corresponding exoteric religions ~ where the Wisdom has been preserved relatively intact or inviolate.

Thus we incarnate via the mineral kingdom, the vegetable kingdom, the animal and only finally reach the human kingdom in this present, or some recent evolutionary cycle. Prior to the Ensouling of our mineral Kingdom, however, there is much that takes place as Life first stirs within the higher, formless worlds ... and reaches forth - through long ages - in the descent through the ethers as described in ślokas 1-4 (and in Volume I of The Secret Doctrine in general, as also at length in Volume II and elsewhere).

The present moment, however, may only be properly appreciated if we are ready to study the wisdom contained in the 5th śloka ... then accept what is implied in the following, 6th śloka. It tells us of our current relation(ship) with the `God within,' as this automatically defines any of us who have already reached the stage of incarnation as a human being (in many, many long ages ago, for the most part ~ even prior cycles, on other planets).

Otherwise, reading the 7th śloka `blind' ... is no better than the religionists have done, creating a `God' out of their Redeemer, where clearly they were warned against this ~ and a reminder provided, lest we fall into their most unfortunate error:
"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself:
but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." ~John 14:10​

Did Jesus teach us about the Monad?

Yes, sir, he did just that. He taught us ALL about the Monad.
 
That is the claim of Theosophy, yes. Just remember, it was never known to have existed before 1925. Chan or Zen (as most of us use those terms) comes from the 28th (and last) Buddhist Patriarch, the Sixth (and last) Ch'an Patriarch. The Dzyan is good reading, but I rather think no Zen-Ch'an practitioner holds it as a "source" of their beliefs.
 
Well, there is the direction in thought that when it comes to God's relationship with God's people, the right hand really doesn't know what the left is doing.

I tend to reject that view. I tend to believe that God acts with Both Hands, if we wish to adapt the metaphor to human terms. Except that God is Three-Handed, or perhaps even Four-Faced, if you wish to keep it simple yet turn up the heat a notch.

Now if you can fathom that in fact, God works through Seven Branches (and more) just as easily as you and I might move all Five (or Ten) fingers with but ONE smooth and continuous motion of our hand/s or arm/s ... then incorporate [ha!] the working of the mind as it determines [wills] the autonomic nervous system, via the brain, to affect said members ...

(now let's try a little Balance, here, a juggling act to be precise, yet worthy of the effort ... as we toss in~)

One Body, as Scripture tells, as also may be understood by each of us;
Composed, again, as witness words on page, of many members ~ again, that's each of us.

Aha. So in fact, God inspired every religion? Yes.
And is there One Living Root of the Tree of these many branches?
Yes. And this explains the man's words as he taught us of the Branch and the Vine, and the Fruit and the Harvest.

Of course, and it will in fact, only make sense when a person approaches it with this sort of wholistic, collectivity in mind ... that is, the Entirety of the Human Family, as One, thus Ministered to (as the Christian will have it) by the same Deity, under whatever guise.

And yes, if the con job is too clever for many, it is also an understandable condition affecting some, that where there is simplicity, there is often much more Harmony ... and living in line with what a Christian will call God's Commandments (even if these be better understood by him today than was often the case 2000 years ago).

So Christ instructed in Parables, Metaphors and as much of the existing religious and ideological motiff [using the prevailing mythos] as was then extant, or on hand. Later, Paul gave a certain ~ he would say, necessary ~ curve, or spin to things, as he sought to adapt the Teachings for an audience who could not be satisfied by milk and bread alone, even if Paul's own words suggest otherwise.

No, he knew his audience to be an educated elite, often enough, who might - in their relative roles, status and position in that day, even as the same dictates much 2000 years later - if they would hear the underlying, more Mystical-Occult FOUNDATION of the Teaching [the `meat'] be able to both receive and distribute [repeat, demonstrate and in their turn, TEACH] this `Water of Life' for enough of the civilization of the time to effect the change in Global Culture [and in the Planetary Life on lesser levels, as a result] which ONLY Humanity is capable of producing, and which even the Christ Himself has been forced to wait an additional 2000, then 2100 years to Witness {help Inaugurate}.

Contemplate the words in Gethsemane. They mean what I have just said, and more.

Of course, the Apostles themselves proved to be obstacles to Christ's own Work, and St. Paul was only partially successful in reaching key thinkers with the esoteric portions of the Gospel ... while St. John's own Revelation, dictated to him by a posthumous or `Transcended' Paul would not, as is evident, be appreciated even 1900 or 2100 years later as the Pure Theosophy which it is, the Ethical Commentary being provided in the Beloved Apostle's own, corollary GOSPEL, which is also the most deeply esoteric and Mystical of the Four.

Now, if you are having trouble, I would recommend picking up and reading the words of St. John the Beloved, himself, as shared by someone who met and knows him well. Naturally, since you are quite eager to reject out-of-hand whatever is put in your way, I shall gladly leave you to it (the latter), and stay out of it, except to assure you, the connection between Dzyan and Zen is even closer than the obvious etymological one between Dyzan, which is pronounced `John,' and the name, as of the Apostle, of the same designation.

Why listen to an Apostle, why listen to the original AUTHORS (or Inspirers) themselves, as are almost universally available in many of these cases ... or indeed, to ANYONE who we haven't pre-screened and carefully selected against the options that WE have always held likely, or `possible,' in our minds.

It's always possible to hold any number of opinions to the contrary, isn't it ... till we turn, face the Light, become rather blinded by its warmth and Illuminative power ... and finally discover that, as Gene Wilder might wish to express it, we may just need to:

Put - the - Candle - BACK

And Happy upcoming Menorah-Lighting time to everyone, for that matter. :)

Namaskara ... and Mazel tov!
 
Ah, you misunderstand. I have read both John and Dzyan. I find no good reason to believe Dzyan has anything to do with what is called Ch'an or Zen by their practitioners. That is all. Your revelation is your revelation. It does not make it the same as mine, nor does it replace 2700 years of tradition (that of Huineng).
 
Okay. It becomes a historical matter if we pursue it, and thus a deviation. Besides, each of us in entitled to his own interpretations.

Perhaps you have some thoughts on the slokas provided, some of the ideas contained therein being at the core of the world's major religious teachings ... ?
 
The question is non-sensical to me. Yes, they reflect almost everything at the core of all (enlightened) theologies, and, yes, we can discuss them one at a time... like deconstructing "Interior Castle" or "Dark Night" one topic at a time. Are the "ideas contained therein being at the core" implies a precedence, which I do not accept, it does not predate those other sources. Is a faithful representation of the ideas at the core? Close, we can go over them one by one, if you wish.
 
Radar and Andrew,

If the two of you start a discussion of the Stanzas, I will happy to join. But it might be more beneficial to start at the beginning (Stanza 1) than in the middle (Stanza 7).

I agree that it would be beneficial to show how the ideas in the Stanzas are common to other major belief systems.
 
Which of you care to lead off with a quoting and a monologue on Stanza 1? I defer to you because I believe you are both more familiar with Theosophy than I.
 
1. THE ETERNAL PARENT WRAPPED IN HER EVER INVISIBLE ROBES HAD SLUMBERED ONCE AGAIN FOR SEVEN ETERNITIES
1a. The Eternal Mother (space) wrapped in her ever invisible robes (cosmic prenebular matter) had slumbered for seven Eternities, Tho-ag in zhi-gyu slept seven Khorlo, The Potential of Spatiality as the Fundamental Cause [or Causal Ground] slept for seven cycles.

First stanza (let us keep the text in bold to differentiate).

What I do not understand is what language “Tho-ag” and “zhi-gyu” and “Khorlo” are. Nor do I understand what is meant by “prenebular matter”.
 
Radar,

I think it is a great idea to take a look at the Stanzas of Dzyan. But first we must take a look at some background details related to the Stanzas before we begin to dissect the Stanzas line by line. According to Theosophy, seven gods created the earth and humanity, and this is clearly spoken of in Genesis 1:26, "Let US make man..." These gods (according to Theosophy) left behind a detailed written record of the work they did at that time. These Stanzas are said to be that written record.

Two very important points need to be made. First is that the Stanzas and the story of Genesis are the exact same written record. The difference is that the Genesis story (according to Theosophy) has been handed down over many, many centuries, to culture after culture after culture. (Theosophy puts forward the idea that the Jews were not the first people to receive the story of Genesis, but they were the most recent culture in a long line of cultures to receive it and disseminate it.) According to Theosophy, the differences between the Stanzas and Genesis have come about because Genesis has undergone many changes (intentional as well as unintentional) over many, many centuries as it has been translated from language to language.

Second point: According to Theosophy, the seven gods of Genesis 1:26 recorded their story millions of years ago (Theosophy says the human race is millions of years old) in a language of that day which has long since disappeared. The amazing thing about Theosophy’s claim is that these Stanzas are the first ever translation of that original story from that ancient language directly into English (an immensely difficult feat, considering how many of the Stanzas’ concepts did not even have corresponding English terminology back in the 1800’s, when the Stanzas were translated directly into English. Even basic concepts that we take for granted today in the English language such as karma, reincarnation, Kundalini, the astral plane, etc., were unheard of in English in the 1800's.)

How does that sound so far?
 
Thanks for the background, it will rein in my questions. I can suspend my disbelief, like I do when I read the Daoist sources or Qur'an (the former because they are so bloody quantum-like weird and the latter because of that constant "this is the final and absolute revelation"). Oh, and, most importantly, when the D-vine reaches out to me.
 
Radar,
　
I didn’t answer your other questions. The words "Tho-ag" and "zhi-gyu" and "Khorlo" are words from that original language from millions of years ago. But I also have to wonder if they might also be ‘modern’ words in present-day Sanskrit or Tibetan. (It is said that parts of today’s Sanskrit are accurate vocabulary words from that original language. No doubt Tibetan probably uses some of those original terms too.)
　
You asked about "prenebular matter". This refers to the state of matter in the universe before galactic nebulae appeared. (I’m assuming that all galaxies started out as nebulae. Is that right?)
　
I also want to respond to your comments about the non-quantum nature of Daoism and the "this is the final and absolute revelation" nature of the Qur'an. You will find neither of these problems in Theosophy. Theosophists were discussing quantum physics and sub-atomic particles back in the 1800’s. (It said that Albert Einstein kept a copy of a Theosophical book on his desk.) Theosophy is also quick to point out that this only the latest release of this information, this information is ‘constantly’ being released, and will continue to be released as the centuries go by.
　
It’s now time to start looking at the Stanzas line by line. The first line is:
　
"The Eternal Parent (space) wrapped in her ever Invisible Robes had slumbered once again for seven Eternities." (Shloka i-1-1. This is part of the first Seven Stanzas, and a shloka is a sub-point within a Stanza.)
　
Let’s take the terms one by one. The Eternal Parent refers to space (just like it says). But as you yourself have said, there was no space-time before the Big Bang, and this is exactly what the Stanzas are saying. The Eternal Parent (space) is said to be wrapped in its Invisible Robes. "Being wrapped in invisible robes" refers to space 'slumbering,' that is, not yet existing.

This is a reference to the state of things before the Big Bang. This period of time between universes is called Pralaya, and Stanza One Shloka 1 is describing Pralayaic conditions. Stanza One describes the conditions within the Pralaya just before our universe’s Big Bang, and is a description of utter and incomprehensible inactivity. Not even time or space ‘exist’ during a Pralaya.
　
One of the problems with Genesis is that it only deals with the beginning of this particular universe. Theosophy, on the other hand, deals with multiple universes. The story of Genesis doesn’t go far enough, The Stanzas do.
　
The next term in the first line of the Stanzas is the term Invisible Robes. This refers to a pre-cosmic matter called Mulaprakriti. One of the best ways to explain Mulaprakriti is to use modern-day sub-atomic theory. We used to think the smallest building block of matter was molecules, but we then discovered atoms. It was later discovered that atoms break up into protons, neutrons, and electrons. It was later learned that these break into sub-particles called quarks. If I remember correctly, the latest theory is that quarks break up into ‘strings.’ (Am I right on this?) Theosophy advances the theory that we will continue to find smaller and smaller sub-particles. But there is one important point. The theory is that we will eventually come to a ‘substance’ that cannot be divided any further. This ‘substance is called Mulaprakriti.
　
There are two things to be said about Mulaprakriti. First, The first moment of the Big Bang was the first division of Mulaprakriti into two (very small!) types of sub-atomic substances. We call these two ‘substances’ spirit and matter, although these two words to do not do justice in describing what we are really talking about.
　
Second, Mulaprakriti is the true nature of the pictures of both the Christian Mary and the Buddhist Guan Yin. Take a look at these two pictures. The first picture is of the Buddhist diety called Guan Yin.
　
　
Kuan%20Y2.jpg


Guan Yin is the most popular deity in Buddhism. There are thousands of Buddhist temples dedicated to her around the world, and millions of people pray to Guan Yin everyday.
　
Next is a picture of the Virgin Mary.
　
65B.jpg



The symbology is important; Both Guan Yin and Mary symbolize the exact same thing, Mulaprakriti. Now, note that Guan Yin is depicted pouring water from a small vase and Mary is depicted holding baby Jesus. Both the water and baby Jesus symbolize the same thing, our universe. The idea is, universe after universe is created from Mulaprakriti — Jesus has had many siblings.
　
One more thing. Mary is referred to as Virgin Mary because Mulaprakriti is a ‘virgin’ substance, that is, its properties are not affected by the universe ("Jesus") that is produced from it.
　
Wow, we are not through even the first line of the Stanzas! Before we press on, what do you think so far?
 
With your context provided (thank you very much), the first line makes lots of sense.

Two of my favorite teaching texts are Tao: The Three Treasures and Yoga: The Alpha and Omega because Osho provides just this kind of context. It really does not matter if everything he said in them is "true" or if what you say is "true" (in matters of spirit one must put down, I believe, that notion).

Within the context, as part of the entity that is my experience of reading and thinking about what you have written, it hits home. I grok.

Galactic evolution and origin is a complex topic. The Standard Model is breaking down with the advent of dark matter and energy. Steinmetz is a good reference, his references are the best, and most papers since 2001 must include his proposals. Call the quantum fluctuations which give rise to the large scale structure of the universe (hence galaxies) "prenebular". In terms of physical cosmology this makes much more sense because nebulae are created by stellar processes (it is another complex). That would be ichi-ban.

You scaling from universe to strings is correct (that is what the Standard Model says). Whether or not strings exist (Hawking says they must be the Theory of Everything or TOE, but there is no direct empirical evidence) at their scale (Planck distances) everything falls apart (becomes Wheeler's quantum foam). The Plank distance is to quantum what singularities are to relativity.... the math comes apart. String/M-Theory is a beautiful mathematical construct that can logically and rigorously be used to couple quantum and relativity... but there are many other candidates for TOE (QLG, or quantum loop gravity is one).

I am inferring there, I can stumble through the math of String/M, but cannot use the math to make original formulae. That is not the point, nor are strings (per se) either... below the quark is something (strings and membranes are the most accepted candidates) necessarily metaphysical because we do not have access (yet) to do direct observation. The something (if quantum theory is correct) must break down (undergo a kind of transformation or phase shift) at the Planck level (10 to the -33th power or so centimeters).

So look up "quantum foam" as used by Wheeler (that is a meta-reference combining Wheeler with Bohm, good overview and citations) it is fair to say that (like the term singularity in relativity) it is overwhelmingly validated.

Mulaprakriti (root of the cosmic substance) can be looked at in two ways. As both (per your background) the singularity at the start of the universe (probably made up, soon thereafter, by pure quantum field which has fluctuations per the Standard Model) and the mental universe as well (if one accepts a dualistic or Platonic view).

I am more comfortable with Mulaprakriti being the essence of events and entities (both physical and mental-spiritual). A higher category one can postulate that provides the structure of events and entities (a pop-up or meta-entity).

So, Pralayaic conditions correspond to the other side of the Big-Bang singularity, Mulaprakriti is the stuff of the singularity and prenebular matter is that part (or product) of Mulaprakriti destined to be experienced as physical entities.

Works quite well for me.
 
Radar,

You have some great ideas, but one thing really jumps out at me from what you have written: What about the astral plane? What about astral matter and astral 'molecules and atoms'? Where do these fit into the scientific theory of the universe (if at all)? I don't think the scientific world is ready to 'admit' that the astral plane exists, is it?

There have been fascinating Theosophical discussions over the years about scientists who, when confronted with 'proof' of the astral plane, refuse to accept it, and ridicule other people who do.

One of the things about science is that it only deals with observable phenomina, and scientists are as yet unable to observe astral phenomina (if indeed it exists, as Theosophy theorizes it does).
 
Okay. What we physically experience is an event in spacetime (a four-vector). Only these events can be examined empirically. All the rest is meta-physics. So the mental and spiritual and astral components of the Kosmos (all of which I believe in) would, in my opinion, as a five-vector, with the addition of mentality as a fifth dimension. You could also do this with each non-physical category of events as a separate dimension. I like simple solutions, so think the lumping all of these together is preferable to multiple dimensions.

The problem you are alluding to is "scientism" (look up the beliefs of Mach or Einstein or Dennett or Dawkins or Fodor). A separate sub-culture (incredibly popular) among scientists. Mach never did accept atomic theory nor Einstein quantum (IMHO) just because they offended their instrumentalist orientation. The latter three fight against qualia or experience or "the hard problem" because (like Mach and Einstein) there is only physicality.
 
Mentality, as radarmark has just pointed out, is the 5th dimension ... even if Higher Manas operates quite beyond [in terms of efficiency, as also with regard to Potency] what most of us are accustomed to experiencing.

Some considerations:
  • The Buddhic plane corresponds with the 6th dimension; Nirvana, which Theosophists call the world of Atma, corresponds with the 7th dimension. It is easy to see, then, when considering a Theosophical metaphysics, how ten dimensions of scientific postulation correspond at least numerically with Vedic Wisdom from thousands of years ago. Details may get fuzzy at 10-D, yet it already takes 5-D to begin to work this out ... as the 5th dimension is the Plane of Mind.
  • The first two [and most rarified] planes of the System are beyond our evolution altogether, being transcendent of strictly human, 4th Kingdom evolution. So one may postulate these to be the 8th and 9th dimension ... as some Chohan or high initiate could verify (and I think probably has). Call these the planes of Adi and Aupadaka, for sake of consistency.
  • Now recall that HPB teaches the existence of Seven COSMIC Planes of Evolution ... this meaning that all of Solar and Planetary [as well as Human] evolution as we know it has been occurring within the Seven sub-planes of a Cosmic Physical Plane (having 49, or even 343+ sub-divisions).

It becomes apparent that the `10th Dimension, if we wish to call it that,' may as well be a white or a black hole ... yet this removes us to something so Grand [in the Masonic sense, of Master Builder & Architect] and so otherworldly that I think even to base our speculations on what we know of the systemic/planetary astral plane will fail to lift our contemplation much beyond the poetic waters of the `Celestial Milky Way' ... or the Magnificent Turtle on whose shell we are fortunate enough to find ourselves riding, etc. :)

Krishna tells us that:
"Having permeated the entire Cosmos with a fragment of myself, I Remain."​
This means that Krishna as the personification of the 2nd Aspect [Vishnu ~ in order to `speak' to us] pervades ALL of Cosmos, yet remains essentially unchanged throughout the entire period of manifestation.

The Upanishad becomes far more literally true if one will grasp the essence of Krishna's statement, then strip it of its anthropomorphism, and remember that science is just now discovering the relative proportions of dark matter and energy to the *known/measurable cosmos* ~ as hinted at by the Sage!

Here is also the Theosophical teaching regarding the Soul, as this being in its effulgence, or true nature, cannot express below the Buddhic level (with an `Individualized' reflection into Higher Mind) ~ for to do so is to splinter or shatter an Essential Unity into a thousand, then a thousand times a thousand [etc.] tiny pieces ... resulting in `The One and the Many' as contemplated by Greek philosophers from Heraclitus forward.

Yet such is the Mystery and also at times the Majesty of Cosmos.

As God explores the Infinite possibilities of Becoming during the cycle of manifestation, a Communion is already, automatically occurring. Theology must either begin with this recognition [as echoed in I Corinthians 12:12], or else we are expected to believe that Cosmos is founded on disorder, without purpose, and only taking on order & meaning as an afterthought [either by an inept creator, or by something undeserving of this title altogether].

Theosophy teaches otherwise, drawing as it does on a lineage that is millions, rather than thousands of years old ... coming to us originally from sources which are beyond our Earth entirely ~ rather than originating in the mind and imagination of man. We, however, may certainly verify such teachings as are provided in the Stanzas of Dzyan ... such having been done anew by each generation of Adepts that transmits the Wisdom.

Theosophy is Hylozoistic, and this means that every single atom of every single plane, or world [physical, astral, mental, spiritual, Cosmic] is both the embodiment and living creation of Deity ... while serving as the vehicle [upadhi, vahan] of yet another expression, or Wave of Divine Life ... the Third [1st Ray] expression of this same Deity [its 3fold Logoity in full expression] becoming the removal of all limitations, which finally returns the atom in question ~ be that a human, a planet, an atom of substance or even a galaxy ~ to its constituent elements, plus that experience which is gained through the entire `exercise.'

One may speculate, yet one relationship remains unavoidable. There continues to remain, both behind all of Human ~ and I would say Devic ~ manifestation ... one Being, beyond a simple `Collectivity,' continuing to evolve and grow, learn and strive toward Perfection ... and also, behind this [or Greater than] there are increasingly Inclusive levels or expressions of Being.

So far, nothing is really being said here which is difficult to reconcile with exoteric religious teachings, imho. All that is required is a little patience, and when explanations are forthcoming, a certain flexibility of mind which will show how the various `pieces' really do: A) fit together, and B) result in something much more astounding than any of us has ever yet imagined!
 
There is one further consideration, albeit a lengthy one, that I think might help if we're going to take a look at the Stanzas in any kind of linear order ... especially if we're beginning with Stanza I. There are what is called the `Three Fundamental Propositions,' and these need to be kept in mind as one approaches the study of the Stanzas.

These serve as underpinnings, and a sort of a priori Revelation ... without the acceptance of which [at least tentatively, for purposes of discussion] all future consideration is probably futile. From the Proem of The Secret Doctrine:

The Secret Doctrine establishes three fundamental propositions: —

(a) An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable Principle on which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of thought — in the words of Mandukya, “unthinkable and unspeakable.”

(b.) The Eternity of the Universe in toto as a boundless plane; periodically “the playground of numberless Universes incessantly manifesting and disappearing,” called “the manifesting stars,” and the “sparks of Eternity.” “The Eternity of the Pilgrim”† is like a wink of the Eye of Self-Existence (Book of Dzyan.) “The appearance and disappearance of Worlds is like a regular tidal ebb of flux and reflux.”

(c) The fundamental identity of all Souls with the Universal Over-Soul, the latter being itself an aspect of the Unknown Root; and the obligatory pilgrimage for every Soul — a spark of the former — through the Cycle of Incarnation (or “Necessity”) in accordance with Cyclic and Karmic law, during the whole term. In other words, no purely spiritual Buddhi (divine Soul) can have an independent (conscious) existence before the spark which issued from the pure Essence of the Universal Sixth principle, — or the over-soul, — has (a) passed through every elemental form of the phenomenal world of that Manvantara, and (b) acquired individuality, first by natural impulse, and then by self-induced and self-devised efforts (checked by its Karma), thus ascending through all the degrees of intelligence, from the lowest to the highest Manas, from mineral and plant, up to the holiest archangel (Dhyani-Buddha). The pivotal doctrine of the Esoteric philosophy admits no privileges or special gifts in man, save those won by his own Ego through personal effort and merit throughout a long series of metempsychoses and reincarnations. This is why the Hindus say that the Universe is Brahma and Brahma, for Brahma is in every atom of the universe, the six principles in Nature being all the outcome — the variously differentiated aspects — of the seventh and one, the only reality in the Universe whether Cosmical or micro-cosmical; and also why the permutations (psychic, spiritual and physical), on the plane of manifestation and form, of the sixth (Brahma the vehicle of Brahma) are viewed by metaphysical antiphrasis as illusive and Mayavic. For although the root of every atom individually and of every form collectively, is that seventh principle or the one Reality, still, in its manifested phenomenal and temporary appearance, it is no better than an evanescent illusion of our senses.

† “Pilgrim” is the appellation given to our Monad (the two in one) during its cycle of incarnations. It is the only immortal and eternal principle in us, being an indivisible part of the integral whole — the Universal Spirit, from which it emanates, and into which it is absorbed at the end of the cycle. When it is said to emanate from the one spirit, an awkward and incorrect expression has to be used, for lack of appropriate words in English. The Vedantins call it Sutratma (Thread-Soul), but their explanation, too, differs somewhat from that of the occultists; to explain which difference, however, is left to the Vedantins themselves.​

Part (a) correlates with the words of Lao Tzu: "The Tao that can be named is NOT the Eternal Tao!" ;)

Part (b) refers to the Monad and Pilgrim, which is identical in most Theosophical Teachings with `The Prodigal Son' of esoteric and symbolic Christianity.

Part (c) is elaborated somewhat in the initial Stanza VII from the OP ... this being summarized as regards the Human Kingdom in slokas 6 & 7 from that post, but detailing pre-human evolutionary stages in slokas 1-5.
 
Radar,
　
It is a fascinating idea, lumping all of the higher dimensions (astral dimension, mental dimension, etc). into a single ‘higher, unknown dimension.’ I can see how this works for you.
　
I would, however, like to relate a few principles of higher dimensions (according to Theosophical theory) because they impact directly on our discussion of mulaprakriti. One idea is that hundreds of astral atoms combine to make one physical atom. (This is why it will take a long time for scientists to finally break quarks and strings down into their astral components.) According to Theosophy, the next dimension above the astral plane is the mental plane, so, of course, a single astral atom is seen as being a combination of hundreds of mental plane atoms. On and on it goes, until we hit the basic substance, mulaprakriti. Scientists think that quarks and strings can be broken down into smaller and smaller physical building blocks, but Theosophy says they are wrong.
　
Now let’s relate mulaprakriti to the first line of the Stanzas (and to the story of Genesis). According to the Stanzas, the first moment of a new universe is the ‘differentiating’ of mulaprakriti into two new ‘elements,’ which are referred to as spirit and matter (but not a matter that is similar to physical matter). This action is described in this way: 'Holes' are dug into mulaprakriti, and these 'holes' are what as seen as the first particles or atoms. These atoms interact and make up what is the first ‘spiritual dimension.’ Hundreds of these atoms also group together to create atoms of the next, denser ‘spiritual dimension.’ On and on it goes, as denser after denser dimension is created, with the astral and physical dimensions being the last and lowest dimensions to be created.
　
Now let’s relate this to Genesis. In the first paragraph of Genesis it is said that spirit moved across the waters at the very beginning of our universe. (This was actually the second step, the first step was the differentiating of mulaprakriti into spirit and matter, but this part is left out of the story of Genesis.) The first two types of highest-dimension atoms are spirit and ‘matter,’ these two types of atoms began interacting, and this is what is being described in Genesis as spirit moving over water.
　
Now lets relate this to the Stanzas. The Stanzas say, "The Eternal Parent (space) wrapped in her ever Invisible Robes had slumbered once again for seven Eternities." (Shloka i-1-1). The Eternal Parent means space and the Invisible Robes means the many levels of dimensions (astral, mental, etc.). The Invisible Robes ‘slumbered’ which means they (dimensions) were unable to be formed. Now let’s relate this to what you have said previously. The Stanzas are saying that even space and dimensions ‘slumbered’ between universes, space and dimensions did not ‘exist’ between universes, which agrees with your previous statement that there is no space-time between universes.
　
There is one more factor to be considered. Theosophy speaks of a Universal Mind, and it is this Universal Mind which causes spirit and matter to appear, then causes them to interact in such a way that causes atoms and molecules to appear, stick together, and form into heavier and more complex forms. It only through the continuous ‘concentrating of the Universal Mind’ that every physical, astral, and mental atom in the universe is held together. If the Universal Mind were to ‘relax this concentration’ for even an instant, every atom in the universe would disappear, which is what Theosophy theorizes will happen at the end of our universe.
　
 
Ecumenist said:
Theosophy is Hylozoistic, and this means that every single atom of every single plane, or world [physical, astral, mental, spiritual, Cosmic] is both the embodiment and living creation of Deity ...
Click to expand...

Would you consider pantheism (as practiced by many Native American tribes) to be a simpler, distilled version of this same concept?
 
Nick the Pilot said:
Scientists think that quarks and strings can be broken down into smaller and smaller physical building blocks, but Theosophy says they are wrong.
Click to expand...

If scientists were to someday prove that quarks & strings can indeed be broken down, how would you reconcile this with your Theosophy beliefs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top