Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00169)

Well dear Proto... 
                    it seems that you are not very familiar with the 
SD, because the Kumaras are a very much discussed subject. For 
example, in Vol I, Part II, the Section called "The Seven Creations", 
HPB says:

"The Kumâras," explains an esoteric text, "are the Dhyanis, DERIVED 
IMMEDIATELY FROM THE SUPREME PRINCIPLE [Capps added], who reappear in 
the Vaivasvata Manu period, for the progress of mankind." ... Four 
(and occasionally five) are mentioned freely in the exoteric texts, 
three Kumâras being secret. (Compare what is said of "The Fallen 
Angels" in Book II.). The Exoteric four are: Sanât-Kumâra, Sananda, 
Sanaka, and Sanatana; and the esoteric three are: Sana, Kapila, and 
Sanatsujâta.

On the other hand, the "pretty stupid" one not knowing what "any 
Blavatsky school-boy knows", according to you, should be GdeP, since 
he is the one who says that Kumaras, Manasaputras and Agnisvattas are 
the same entities: before, during and after having passed through the 
human stage.
And I wouldn't say so confidently that "there are no member of any 
level of Dhyan-Chohans unless they have passed through the human 
level", because that term is quite wide, although I don't have the 
time to discuss this question now.
But I cannot help being surprised by your style of writing... Is it 
necessary being so aggressive? I don't mind it, but it doesn't seem 
even civilized, let apart theosophical. Why aren't we able to study 
and discuss intelligently, with respect. That kind of messages sounds 
to me in a spirit of fundamentalism.


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "proto37" <proto37@...> wrote:
>
>   Where the heck do you get "Sanat Kumara" ("a very high being"!!) -
> from Baily??  HPB only has a minor note on him in the SD, and 
nothing
> in the BCW I can find.  You can't compare Bailey or CW Bedwetter 
with
> Blavatsky.
> 
> Pablo writes: >Kumaras, Manasaputras and Agnisvattas are the same
> entities: before, during and after having passed through the human 
stage.<
> 
>    Pablo, I think you might be pretty stupid. Any Blavatsky school-
boy
> knows that there are no member of any level of Dhyan-Chohans Unless
> they have passed through the "human level", because they are more
> evolved beings than us, and Have to by law and the nature of things.
> You can't get a college degree when you haven't even been through
> kindergarten yet. The "Dark Chohans" are nothing but huge elementals
> who are Below humanity.  How can you hope to make sense of anything 
if
> you don't even understand this!
> 
> 
>    Also, Each of the lokas and talas, no doubt, would have "sub-
lokas
> and sub-talas" within it, corresponding with the appropriate talas 
and
> lokas, I would expect.  Just as each of the human principles has 7
> sub-principles in it corresponding to the main principles.  Basics 
for
> theosophic study, I would think.  Maybe you should read more GdeP.
> 
> 
>           - jake j.
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Pablo Sender" <pasender@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Frank
> > 
> > Let's go to the root of the thing. It is Ok to me if you support 
GdeP 
> > teachings. That's your right. I cannot do it because when 
studying 
> > obscure matters in the SD and going to his books for some light, 
I 
> > never found an answer, only discrepancies (from my point of 
view). 
> > Two small examples, besides that of the 12 globes:
> > 1 - He says Kumaras, Manasaputras and Agnisvattas are the same 
> > entities: before, during and after having passed through the 
human 
> > stage. A nice idea, but it doesn't fit with HPB's in several 
ways. 
> > One of them: if a Kumara is a spiritually passive entity before 
> > passing through the human experience, Why is Sanat Kumara & Co. 
(very 
> > evolved Beings) called that way, and not Sanat Agnisvatta, for 
> > example?
> > 2 - GdeP says Talas are states on the descending (involutive) arc 
and 
> > Lokas are states on the ascending (evolutive) arc. But then, in 
HPB's 
> > teachings to the EST, she says each loka (or more accurately, the 
> > four lower ones) has the seven talas in it, and one can go to one 
or 
> > another in different moments, because Loka is a psychic state 
related 
> > to the spiritual level of evolution of a person, and Tala is the 
> > intellectual state at any given moment.
> > 
> > So you see, I don't consider GdeP teachings very useful, based 
> > on "theosophical" reasons (so to say). But nevertheless, I don't 
deny 
> > his teachings may be useful to other people, or my understanding 
may 
> > reveal a different thing in the future, so I would not call it 
pseudo-
> > Theosophy nor even Neo-Theosophy. All those derogative terms are 
the 
> > seed of dogmatism and sectarianism.
> > What would you want? A theosophical inquisition? Kill 
Leadbeaterians! 
> > I think that's far below the level of an aspirant to become a 
true 
> > theosophist, and even of a mere academic professor of philosophy. 
> > That attitude damages the whole theosophical movement. I've heard 
> > serious people disregarding Theosophy because of the internal 
> > conflicts among theosophical organizations. Cannot we be mature 
> > enough as to treat with respect every theosophical leader? We owe 
> > respect to any person, spiritual tradition, etc. Why should we be 
so 
> > emotional when coming to different theosophical leaders? I can 
only 
> > see in that narrow-mindedness.
> > According to HPB, theosophy is a term much wider than its modern 
> > interpretation. She spoke about J. Boehme as being a theosophist 
and, 
> > let me tell you, his teachings are far more distant from 
Blavatsky's 
> > than Leadbeater's teachings from her.
> > Are you aware of HPB's statements as the following?:
> > 
> > ". . . Every great thinker and philosopher, especially every 
founder 
> > of a new religion, school of philosophy, or sect, is necessarily 
a 
> > Theosophist. Hence, Theosophy and Theosophists have existed ever 
> > since the first glimmering of nascent thought made man seek 
> > instinctively for the means of expressing HIS OWN INDEPENDENT 
> > OPINIONS (Capps added)." CW vol. II, p. 88, `What is Theosophy?'
> > 
> > There are plenty of them in HPB's writings. But some people 
choose 
> > not to notice them (In the September issue of The Theosophist 
there 
> > will be an article of mine about "What is Theosophy" with several 
> > quotations of HPB on this point)
> > Of course, we could do comparative studies between the teachings 
of 
> > different theosophical leaders. Seriously, with respect, 
humility, 
> > without saying "this is Theosophy, that is not".
> > 
> > Well, that's for the time being
> > 
> > All the best
> > 
> > p
> >
>