Spirit Guides - what are they?

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by wayfaring

How do we know?

We don't?

Simple... You have Zag... He swears blind this is real.. He see's and feels this... Others again are not sure... and some will swear blind it is but a scam.

But who's word can you take on it? You're own? Then do you truly know? I would say it is 100% fake... I can see nothing genuine within it... and will give an explination for any example or show or reading or whatever given to me... Others will say I am blind sighted, not looking at the "bigger picture" or I am not open minded.... Heh, But I can only go on what I know and feel like those who believe into this... I guess we'll only find out when we are dead.... Which also makes me ponder... Most things can with research or something found to be true or false... But with this you must die, to find out. I'll wait.

[Zagreus]

I would quote part of two pages from The Secret Doctrine (footnotes included), which I stumbled upon the other day (in researching hylozoism & panpsychism), since I think they are especially relevant to this discussion and to what you posted, Virtual_Cliff:

Here, again, unless the Occult teaching is accepted, we are compelled once more to face a miracle; to accept the theory of a personal, anthropomorphic Creator, the attributes and definitions of whom, as formulated by the Monotheists, clash as much with philosophy and logic, as they degrade the ideal of an infinite Universal deity, before whose incomprehensible awful grandeur the highest human intellect feels dwarfed. Let not the modern philosopher, while arbitrarily placing himself on the highest pinnacle of human intellectuality hitherto evolved, show himself spiritually and intuitionally so far below the conceptions of even the ancient Greeks, themselves on a far lower level, in these respects, than the philosophers of Eastern Aryan antiquity. Hylozoism, when philosophically understood, is the highest aspect of Pantheism. It is the only possible escape from idiotic atheism based on lethal materiality, and the still more idiotic anthropomorphic conceptions of the monotheists; between which two it stands on its own entirely neutral ground. Hylozoism demands absolute Divine Thought, which would pervade the numberless active, creating Forces, or "Creators"; which entities are moved by, and have their being in, from, and through that Divine Thought; the latter, nevertheless, having no more personal concern in them or their creations, than the Sun has in the sun-flower and its seeds, or in vegetation in general. Such active "Creators" are known to exist and are believed in, because perceived and sensed by the inner man in the Occultist. Thus the latter says that an ABSOLUTE Deity, having to be unconditioned and unrelated, cannot be thought of at the same time as an active, creating, one living god, without immediate degradation of the ideal.*

*The conception and definition of the Absolute by Cardinal Cusa may satisfy only the Western mind, prisoned, so unconsciously to itself, and entirely degenerated by long centuries of scholastic and theological sophistry. But this "Recent philosophy of the Absolute," traced by Sir W. Hamilton to Cusa, would never satisfy the more acutely metaphysical mind of the Hindu Vedantin.

A Deity that manifests in Space and Time -- these two being simply the forms of THAT which is the Absolute ALL -- can be but a fractional part of the whole. And since that "all" cannot be divided in its absoluteness, therefore that sensed creator (we say Creators)can be at best but the mere aspect thereof. To use the same metaphor -- inadequate to express the full idea, yet well adapted to the case in hand -- these creators are like the numerous rays of the solar orb, which remains unconscious of, and unconcerned in, the work; while its mediating agents, the rays, become the instrumental media every spring -- the Manvantaric dawn of the Earth -- in fructifying and awakening the dormant vitality inherent in Nature and its differentiated matter. This was so well understood in antiquity, that even the moderately religious Aristotle remarked that such work of direct creation would be quite unbecoming to God -- [[aprepes toi theo]]. Plato and other philosophers taught the same: deity cannot set its own hand to creation, -- [[autournein hapanta]]. This Cudworth calls "Hylozoism." As old Zeno is credited by Laertius with having said, "Nature is a habit moved from itself, according to seminal principles; perfecting and containing those several things which in determinate times are produced from it, and acting agreeably to that from which it was secreted."**

** Cudworth's "Intellectual System,"I. p. 328.

I would add ... that I always did love the Greeks. They were the only Western philosophers who I could really understand, except perhaps for Immanuel Kant, and Bishop Berkeley. Why is it that the above just makes sense to me? I don't know; I can't explain it. Having studied Blavatsky's Three Fundamental Propositions, it just makes all the sense in the world. Perhaps it dates back to Akhenaten's reign. The type of monotheism he helped popularize, versus a tendency to get lost in the maze of Hebdomad, Ogdoad, and other funny words having to do with the Pantheon.

{The Propositions are also thoroughly NeoPlatonic, Vedantin, or even Kabbalistic, if we examine them.}

None of this, in my understanding, excludes, or precludes, the concept of an unconditionally Loving, Infinitely Wise, Majestic Being ... called by esotericists the Planetary, or Solar LOGOS (Seven Elohim, Seven Rishis, Seven Dhyani Buddhas, Seven Amshaspends, Seven Spirits before the Throne, if you will - but always as expressions of the ONE).

What is said is quite in keeping with what we already know ... from say, the past century or so of LIMITED discovery, understanding & application ... of but one aspect, or example, of nature's Forces. Heat, Light, Sound, are all related to Electricity. But electricity, however we generate it upon earth (giving physical expression to something from higher worlds altogether), exists in terms of voltages ... and we speak of currents, frequences, and vibration.

Simply put, you cannot run a line, straight from your toaster, to the nuclear power plant down the road ... and expect every one else to do the same, then expect to press the little button and get toast. yeah toast!!!

That word kinda says it all. Moses, he saw the burning bush. Aaron, in the Priestly Blessing of the Kohanim, speaks volumes to us ... if you will look at what is being said - not once, but twice, in this blessing. The Secret Doctrine speaks of the Lords of Shining Countenance, as finally being forced out of incarnation (or exoteric appearance) by the Lords of the Dark Face ... during Atlantis.

We know that we are all created "in God's image," and I think that when we conceive of this in terms of the ability to co-create - on a lesser, but tremendously important scale - we are on the right track. If we will add to this the understanding of our potential to Love with the Love of Christ, then the image begins to shine. And when to this, we add Service, or Sacrifice, the "making Holy" of our entire, lesser being ... then we have grasped the Divine Blueprint (in broadest outline), in terms of Humanity's intended relationship with the Divine.

We do not plug the toaster into the nuclear power plant. It will blow up.

We do not even plug it into the box hanging out there on the power lines - the transformer. That will blow up our toaster too. And if you plug that kind of transformer into a nuclear power plant, guess what! Yeah, it's toast!!!

This is overly simplistic, obviously. There are countless more Divine energies, expressing though dozens, hundreds, thousands, even millions of possible combinations ... than just electricity - but we could come up with an analogy for the princples of Love, and Understanding, to illustrate this same idea: God reaches us, not by yelling in our ear (Alanis showed us what happens whe She does that, remember?). There is the "still, small voice," and once we have tuned into "it," everything else tends to fall into place.

I think it's worth imagining, for a moment, that it's as if we are bending down, looking through a keyhole. Sometimes there is enough light, and we manage not to be blinded, so that we can catch a glimpse of what lies beyond. Other times, we cannot "see," but if we turn our head, it is possible to hear a whisper - and in rare instances, the conversation can be as clear as a phonecall. It does not surprise me that people refer to this as "talking to God," or "speaking with Jesus." It only makes sense.

I would not dare suggest that we dabble around in the astral plane, or sit with a ouija board, because in my experience, this is just inviting trouble. Others may feel that a good "Lighten up, dude," is in order, and I think in the context that much of this stuff is discussed, this is okay advice. God knows I need to, often enough.

But you can't have it both ways. If all this spirit guide crap, mumbo jumbo .... hocus pocus, scam, trickery, hieararchy that doesn't need to exist ... really doesn't - then do we each, as it were, have God's ear? I think we are back to the toaster. The only reason I don't get totally freaked out about it (having expressed this, as I have, in terms of voltages) ... is because I think Nature (God's Creation) has some Awfully good, clever safeguards built-in - such that even when people do try to plug that toaster in too close to the source, electric currents are properly stepped down, and seldom does a person end up looking like Wile E. Coyote after the ACME bomb trick backfired.

Incidentally, the whole idea of increased vibrational frequency - on all levels from physical, through emotional, psychological and into the Spirtual, is part of what Initiation is all about. IF there is a Hierarchy of spiritual beings (including Humans) more evolved than us ... then, I am much more likely to believe in Them if there are poeple around who claim to have had encounters with them.

And such people abound, from all walks of life, of ALL prior religious orientations, and NONE, exceedingly skeptical, as well as extremely gullible or impressionable. Theosophists are one example of esotericist, but we can look at the Spiritualists, people having had Near-Death-Experiences and out-of-body experiences, folks who claim to channel aliens/angels/masters, and so forth. To lump these all together, as if all were saying the same thing ... is a disservice, and gets us nowhere. If our argument is that all this is just hocus pocus and nonsense, then so too, this silly notion of an invisible man in the sky - WHO NEEEEEEEDS MONEY!!! Ughhhh!

The anthropomorphism, to me, is what insults our intelligence ... as people still chase around Grandpa, with the white beard, through the endless maze of the subconscious. And if he were a happy old chap, that would be one thing, but the wrathful, jealous, tribal bugger of a badguy still frightens children - well into adulthood. No wonder children have bad dreams!

As one Master points out, this is - essentially - Santa Claus ... and as our images, and wish-life, and morality-consciousness begins to clash with the more objective side of things, we find that we must repress Santa Claus - the happy, cheery old fella, who will nonetheless bring coal if you have been wicked. He KNOWS.

The Santa-Claus God ... alive and well, here on planet earth. But masters? Oh they're just a fiction, some crap that some old trickster dreamed up one day, wanting to pull the wool over your eyes.

If there are no Masters in the world, we're ALL in a mess o' trouble! Spirit Guides? I am a bit skeptical, and do not seek them, personally. But if I fell overboard, and needed someone to throw me a rope, I wouldn't care WHAT planet they said they were from ... I don't wanna drown!

This is pretty much the story of the poisoned arrow ... and I've already been babbling about it for hours. Time to get something done!

Love and Light,

~zagreus

[Zagreus]

If we could meet in person, myself and at least two other people who have the least bit of interest in observing a simple illustration ... I would offer to provide one. I know, I know, I said I wouldn't sit with a ouija board. But this is actually one of the easiest, clearest ways to "tap in," imho. The problem is, that like so much else of a serious nature when it comes to the Occult Sciences ... we have the crap from sorority babes meet Satan movies, which gives it all a bad name.

The diehard skeptic, if s/he comes to the table (board) with a determination not to be convinced, will walk away equally unconvinced, but all-the-more perturbed because somehow they have been the victim of a practical joke. They have been tricked! And now they cannot rest until they find out HOW!

What is required - is not gullibility or blind credulity, but simply the "willing suspension of disbelief." If three of us sat down with a ouija board, in a quiet corner of the coffee shop, and focused - with PURE intent - of obtaining an answer, a response, to a question put to one of history's Great Minds ... then in the vast majority of cases, I do feel that we would meet with an adequate answer. Adequate for what? Ah, this is just the point.

You CANNOT expect to sit down, if you have the SOLE INTENT within yourself ... of debunking this sort of thing ... and walk away with one shred of evidence that there are "spirits" or "spirit guides." The proper way for us to go about such a thing, would be for me to ask, what would it take - not to convince you - but to OPEN you to the possibility that this is 100% legit (in SOME cases), and not 100% fabrication (in ALL cases)?

At the end of the day, when Joe Spirit has spoken to us, you will come away wondering, probably assuming, was this just my subconscious? Ahhh, but what about the other two people at the little pointer, index thingy? Oh, I overpowered them. errr, but they made it quite clear that they did NOT feel you, or any of us, moving the thingy. Ummm, WHO did then. Well CLEARLY it can't have been "a spirit" ...

But I tell you, so long as we approached such an event with an open mind, and a positive intent ... these kind of questions are natural. We may not change our mind, or believe in this kind of thing, for years - or, EVER. This isn't really the point, the way I see it. It can take lifetimes ... before a seed that has been planted, meets the proper conditions for opening.

Anyone who has read much into Theosophical history (or that of HPB and the Society), should know the entire context within which HPB's phenomena were being worked, and why. She could produce phenomena, on her own, since earliest childhood. She knew her own Master from a very early age, and eventually met him in the flesh. She was the student of the Masters, living in Tibet, for a number of years - but the purpose for this apprenticing, as it might be called, was NOT so that she could make roses fall out of thin air and wow the credulous, stupid westerners into awe - then all-the-easier to stuff them fat with pernicious Eastern philosophy and watered-down Hindusim, my dear. Err, pardon me, I suddenly thought I was Margaret Gulch!

But in fact, this is not entirely unfounded, given the real purpose of the seances, precipitations, flowers and buried teacups. If person, by virtue of previous lives of spiritual development, is say - 98% ready to set foot consciously on the Path (of pledged discipleship, leading to accepted discipleship, and finally to the Path of Initiation) ... then there is a good likelihood that owing to their OWN commitment and devotion, the SOUL in question (and not the personality) will react positively, and accept the "final push" that enables them to TAKE THE NEEDED STEPS ON THEIR OWN.


It's funny, when I think about it, that people actually believe that this woman, with her intriguing, amusing exterior - yet a heart of gold, and demonstrating the utmost of personal sacrifice - might have been trying to beguile, swindle, or otherwise mislead a single soul (!!!) ... given that it was the same woman who taught us the importance of The Golden Stairs:

A clean life, an open mind, a pure heart, an eager intellect, an unveiled spiritual perception, a brotherliness for one's co-disciple; a readiness to give and receive advice and instruction, a loyal sense of duty to the Teacher, a willing obedience to the behests of TRUTH, once we have placed our confidence in, and believe that Teacher to be in possession of it; a courageous endurance of personal injustice, a brave declaration of principles, a valiant defence of those who are unjustly attacked, and a constant eye to the ideal of human progression and perfection which the secret science depicts -- these are the golden stairs up the steps of which the learner may climb to the Temple of Divine Wisdom.

HPB ceased the phenomena, when the people who were witnessing it all, ceased to think for themselves - and ceased to consider the implications of what they had witnessed (the unseen powers & forces at work, producing everything in nature ... and also enabling man to tread the Spiritual Path, when he is willing). She did not want a cult following, least of all an unthinking, superstitious, impressionable bunch of sheep ... so the Masters put an end to her demonstrations.

Meanwhile, if a Master needed to get a message through, it was not uncommon to send an advanced pupil, who could materialize the message - and if need be, this meant the concretization of the sthula sharira, and HANDING it to her [HPB]. It's pure comedy to me, that people would talk about "miracles," or other manifestations and phenomena, just because some Holy Book somewhere - the accounts of people living thousands of years ago - say that so-and-so walked on water ... while eyewitness testimony SWORN to by easily a dozen or more thinking, skeptical, scientifically trained observers ... is just part'n'parcel of the "deception."

And I am still puzzling over the supposed motives! Was it money? I think not! Oh, easy then, fame! Notoriety! Glory! Err, do you have ANY idea how often, and how much, HPB was slandered, in her OWN lifetime??? This woman, one of the strongest souls we have ever known, was in TEARS because plenty enough, the clergy on one hand, and the materialistic scientists on the other, were seeking to DESTROY all that she was laboring so hard to embody, and to anchor.

They failed, of course, because of the nature of Those - and the ONE - Who were behind her ... yet the Theosophical Movement ... spiritually or esoterically speaking - was ultimately a failure, or at best, a partial success (say the Masters Themselves). The first of three sets of Teachings were provided, and these we may study today. But newer, clearer instruction has also been given, by several Masters, and most of it is easier to digest than what was written by H.P. Blavatsky.

Why do I believe a single word of what HPB wrote, and what other esoteric authors have written? For the same reason ANY of us have ever believe ANYthing. There are a handful of lesser reasons, like "nothing else makes sense to me even remotely like this does," and "gee, ya think a Master of the Wisdom just might have a clue about stuff like this?" There is also the definite, wonderful feeling of inspiration, or even that clear, illumined, insightful state or mind ... amidst which anything, it seems, can be revealed and understood as it really is - simply by turning our awareness to it. Yes, there are so many ways we can understand. "It just fits" with other stuff that makes sense to me. This in particular, is one I like. It jibes!



The Buddha, however, said that none of these was the real reason we should believe a thing. If God Himself handed you the book ... Buddha's comment would STILL apply:

But we are to believe when the writing, doctrine, or saying is corroborated by our own reason and consciousness. "For this," says he in concluding, "I taught you not to believe merely because you have heard, but when you believed of your consciousness, then to act accordingly and abundantly."

The last six words would seem to be the most important ... and time's a wastin'!

~Zag

[Virtual_Cliff]

An interesting and amiable ramble if I may say so. This reminds me a bit of the discussion on angels. Do they exist? Are we (or can we be) angels for others? Are we God? St Paul describes the Church as the body of Christ.

If you look at the spectrum with definite red at one end and definite blue at the other, who can say where indigo becomes violet? So the God at the source and the human experience at the other may be different but who can authoritatively divide the line into segments and name them?

My only quibble is with your mention of Masters. I like to think we are all masters of our own destiny. For that matter we are all creators too, as we all share in creating the next moment out of the present. Creation is still happening of course. Oops - getting off topic.

best wishes,
cliff

[Zagreus]

Yeah ... Masters ... I hesitate to guess about something I understand so poorly. I have seen them referred to as simply, The Great Ones, or The Elder Brothers.

A Master is someone who has no more left to learn through incarnation upon our planet. They have Mastered life on Earth. The Eastern term is Asekha Adept, or One who is so skilled, that he is a NO-Learner (A-sekha). It is the consummation, or next stage, after arhatship.

So, the term master was never intended to convey that "these are OUR masters." The Master is the Soul within the form - the Agnishvatta (Agni, Lord of Fire + Ishvara), or Manasaputra (Son of Mind). I cannot locate the book at present, but there is a beautiful colored pencil sketch in the frontispiece of Regents of the Seven Spheres, by H.K. Challoner, which depicts `The Teacher.' I do not know if this was meant to refer to an Angel (Archangel), or perhaps the Soul itself. The eyes are closed, which conveys a certain meaning, and the portrait is of the head only. But it is an aura, not a physical form.

Many years ago I framed this picture, and meditated with it for years. I believe this is our true self, the Christ within - as an actual being, helping us to achieve the same. But relative to the personality life, the Soul is much more like the Rays of Sunshine mentioned in Blavatsky's quote. The Soul does not descend, in terms of consciousness, into the worlds of form. We meet it within the higher mind, and at-one-ment begins to occur, Soul-infusion. This is gradual, and can take several lifetimes, but often climaxes in one particular life.

So the idea of guardian angels, while interesting, does not register with me. I think there are angels (devas), and even human helpers, who can assist in the capacity that people mean by this term. But the notion that someone or something is floating around, just waiting for an opportunity to serve us, or bail us out, is a reversal of things. This notion of spirit guides is one I do not like, for it seems absurdly selfish, and only reinforces the idea of a separate ego-consciousness, and self-importance.

Bringing the Masters down to the level of glorified personalities, desiring some kind of respect, admiration, worship, cult-following, or fan club, is not what Blavatsky and Bailey intended. They both bitterly regretted telling the public about the Masters, even though this was part of what they were asked to do. In Alice Bailey's case, it was actually a mistake on her part, that Master DK's identity was ever disclosed to begin with.

I know I am verbose, but the whole subject is 90% subjective for me, impossible to express. The one word, `Augeiodes,' for example, communicates volumes. This, plus the Aaronic Blessing, mean a great deal to me.

~zag

[Francis king]

glad someone mentioned angels... as we know, originally there were only seven of the blighters, and off they would go, to do the bidding of god, which involved smiting ppl with swords, visiting them with plagues, and putting red hot coals in ppl's mouths, (to name but a few of their glorious tasks)... in the, erm, maybe mid 15th century some guy comes along and divides the kingdom of heaven into three realms, instead of just the one like b4, and he creates the angelic realm, and today, ppl believe there are millions of the blighters...

... I read the secret doctrine when I was a mere babe of 15... at the time, I thought it was something special, occult, mystical... I read it again at about 20, and realised that it looked good, but it didnt really have much substance, and that the author talked a lot and really said little we didnt know or couldnt surmise for ourselves...

I have watched with amusement as todays theosophists try to ressurect the messiah thing they had going with krsnamurti again today with maitreya, and I have laughed when they said- hey, he's the new messiah, and he has great psychic powers, but he wont use them because... because he doesn't have them? shock horror!

yes, these ideas and the way she explains them seem great, when ur living in 1890, and u have no TV, and no internet action, but today, in 2007, it all just seems a little stale, to me... its great, if u want a low brow entry into hinduism, and u dont know about lokas and mantavaras and such like, but after that...

I "dont believe in a personal, anthromorphic creator", and not because my human intellect feels dwarfed, but because, according to my simple logic, if a god like that exists, then, according to the state of the world today, he's a sadist with deep rooted psychological issues, and simply not worthy of my worship...

all this- "...the ancient Greeks, themselves on a far lower level, in these respects, than the philosophers of Eastern Aryan antiquity. Hylozoism, when philosophically understood, is the highest aspect of Pantheism. "

all sounds great, but just because u mention ancient greeks and throw in a few big words nobody's heard of it doesn't make it classy doctrine, although again, in 1890 ppl where more easily impressed and awed...

"...the Western mind, prisoned, so unconsciously to itself, and entirely degenerated by long centuries of scholastic and theological sophistry...",

basically, needs to get wth the programme, and theosophy, a poor white mans hinduism, (which is dusprayukta all the way) is supposed to fit the bill... endless lectures on the microcosm, benjamin creme selling another book, and hey! Atlantis!

the whole seven rays and the seven tiers in the heirarchy of men, where africans are referred to as lemurs (u know, monkeys...) and are not as intelligent as the germans, its all there, in the secret doctrine... hey, long may it continue...

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by Zagreus

Socarates spoke of the daimon, or daimonion, which did not advise him in the positive, but rather, indicated what not to do, thus warning him of danger.

Socrates said that he believed he had a personal daimonion, which means "little daimon". It was only a little one because it warned him what not to do, rather than telling him what he ought to do, which is presumably what a bigger daimon would have done.

I personally believe that a daimon is only a natural aspect of one's own psychology, having to do with one's subconscious mental processes. It isn't the same thing as a conscience, though this too is a natural aspect of the way in which one's subconscious mental processes can "speak" to one's conscious mind.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Zagreus]

Originally Posted by Francis king

... I read the secret doctrine when I was a mere babe of 15... at the time, I thought it was something special, occult, mystical... I read it again at about 20, and realised that it looked good, but it didnt really have much substance, and that the author talked a lot and really said little we didnt know or couldnt surmise for ourselves...

Well you see, people do this with all sorts of books, like the Bible, or the Bhagavad Gita, or the Koran.

I find it curious that you already knew of the coming of the Sons of the Fire Mist, and Humanity's Individualization ... or could surmise this for yourself, without the SD. Care to explain it your own words, or in terms of the realization that had already come to you?

But Francis, if you knew thing one about what is taught on the Bodhisattva (Maitreya ... Future Buddha) in Theosophy, you'd realize quite clearly that Krishnamurti was never, ever thought to be the World Teacher ... save perhaps by a few newcomers who maybe failed to read their Sunday School lessons - or whatever it was that the Order of the Star might have used to familiarize people with the goings-on of the times.

An excellent article on World Teachers, about 5 pages long, can be found here, in a 1936 issue of World Theosophist. Francis doesn't need to read it, of course; she already knows far better than what we find here. But for the rest of us dolts, a good overview is given of the Hindu concept of Avatars, the Buddhist idea of Bodhisattvas, the Logos conception of the Christ, and the Occult idea of World Teachers. Comparisons and contrasts are shown; thus it is a good article for comparative study.

What the Theosophists believed, with Leadbeater and Besant guiding the thinking of many who were willing to trade this critical faculty for that of pure devotion (dangerous, this) .... was that the World Teacher spoke through Krishnamurti, a little bit like channeling, or your garden variety Spirit Guide, be she angel (Deva), human, or other.

The difference, of course, between the expression of the World Teacher - using Krishnamurti as His medium, just as He used Jesus 2100 years ago - and that of joe shmoe, from spirit guides r us, is that a High Initiate will be required in order to incarnate Lord Maitreya, since Earth is not yet capable (karmically speaking) of providing the substance (in the lower worlds) for such a Soul as the Christ (Bodhisattva, World Teacher, Kalki Avatara, Imam Mahdi).

So nice, isn't it, to invoke meaningless phrases like, "God is all-powerful, almighty, yadda yadda," then totally ignore the fact that Earth, like all Planets, must undergo her own spiritual evolution - as well as material. No GOD can artificially hasten (beyond a certain degree) that development in substance which HUMANITY was created (in part) to fulfil, or perform.

Eventually we must provide our own World Teachers, just as every other Planet in Cosmos ... but in the meantime, it would be good if we could just manage to produce the FORM - the family, the community, the sustainable, peace-loving society & civilization (all of these blueprints, or living ideal-models having long been given to us by God, with countless iterations & improvements, reminders, etc.) ... into which a Christ or Bodhisattva could incarnate - GEE, that would be convenient!

But we can't seem to manage it. Twice, thus far, has an advanced Initiate been willing to undergo special, artificial hastening of his own evolution - certainly along lines which were not part of his original spiritual need, or intent - so that the Christ of the 5th Root Race could take Incarnation (and this is EXACTLY what He has done, even while it is via an Initiate, another Soul, that He manifests ... the method does not change the Effect for our little planet).

Originally Posted by Francis king

africans are referred to as lemurs (u know, monkeys...)

Oh Francis, your ignorance is showing again. I know, I know, at 15 you had already mastered that which most students of esotericism (even those who do appreciate HPB's service and commitment) study and meditate upon for a lifetime! And at 20, in your deep & unswerving enlightenment, all of the silliness just jumped out at you so clearly, that despite the disgrace, you humbled yourself to read it all again ... so that you could steer others away from such spurious notions as this, of the African lemurs, which in your Mastery you understood to be ill-founded.

BAH! The only thing you've got going here, when we consider our other CR member who loves to poo-poo the Theosophical teachings, is that indeed, you did bother (twice, even!!!) to crack the book (SD, or otherwise) to begin with!!! And yes, I am impressed, just disappointed that you got no further than you did.

I respect ONLY that your own choice is not to pursue these teachings further. If you fail to find meaning, usefulness or inspiration between the pages of The Secret Doctrine, it will do you no good to study it further, especially once you have convinced yourself that everything you see is either in error, or a poor reproduction of Hindu dusprayutka, whatever that is.

In the teaching of root races, HPB elaborates on the Stanzas of Dzyan, where we are told that ~18 million years ago, Humanity first began to take physical form upon the Earth ... having been, prior to this, astral and etheric giants. We were animal-men, equivalent in our intellectual development to pre-Neanderthal cave people, with everthing from lower & higher mind, Buddhic faculty, and Nirvanic (Spiritual) consciousness being completely latent ... "slumbering," as it were.


As Humanity began to materialize into the dense physical world of gaseous, liqued & solid matter, taking FURTHER incarnation into the world(s) of form, we reached the NADIR of the wheel of both material and spiritual evolution. This was in the middle of the 3rd Root Race, and LET US SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT about why it has been called `Lemurian':

Lemuria: The ancient continent, or system of continental masses, inhabited by the various races and subraces of the third root-race. The name was adopted by theosophists from certain European zoologists, especially Sclater and Haeckel, who gave that name to a hypothetical zoologic area or sunken continent in order to explain the distribution of certain animals, especially the lemurs.

Lemuria embraced large areas in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and at one time extended in a horseshoe around Madagascar and South Africa (then but a fragment), while Northern Lemuria stretched into the North Atlantic and sent an arm as far as Norway. A ridge in the Atlantic 9000 feet high, runs south from a point near the British Isles, slopes towards South America, then turns southeast toward the African coast, and thence to Tristan d'Acunha. It would be wrong, however, to suppose that the configuration of Lemuria was always the same; for secular changes are continually operating in all geologic epochs. At one time it covered the whole area from the foot of the Himalayas, westward to Hardvar, eastward to Assam, southward to Southern India and Sumatra, embracing Australia on one side and Madagascar on the other, reaching nearly to the Antarctic Circle; extending far into the Pacific to Easter Island. Its remains are seen in the numerous islands included in this area.

Lemuria, although submerged as a continental system, was not submerged as was Atlantis, but sank because of terrific seismic and volcanic activities lasting for ages. Its Atlantic portion was the geological basis for the succeeding continental system of Atlantis, which thus was rather a development of the Lemurian system than an entirely new and separate body of continental masses. (from An Online Theosophical Glossary)

If we prefer to call this continent `Mu,' then at least we will have the recognition of one other member at CR who understands the connection, as well as countless people who can smile, in considering the more bovine association. And yet, again from the same glossary: Mu (Senzar) Destruction of temptation; a portion of the mystic word in Northern Buddhism.

What is the relationship of modern-day Africans to the 3rd Root Race Lemurians? Simply that, according to Theosophical teachings, these are the modern day descendents - all of mixed blood with the 4th, Atlantean Root Race, and also the 5th - from the LATTER half of Lemuria.

But Francis, by all means, don't let the facts stop you ... and don't you DARE consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you didn't quite "get" it (on either occasion, when you read HPB's magnum opus). No, enlighten us further about the foolishness and error - that is modern Theosophy.

Originally Posted by Francis king

glad someone mentioned angels ... as we know, originally there were only seven of the blighters

Gee, and I just never thought of Archangel Michael, Gabriel, Zadkiel, et al as "blighters."

~Zag

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Francis king

glad someone mentioned angels... as we know, originally there were only seven of the blighters

Sorry... How do we know there were seven?

[Francis king]

it says so in that other infallible text, 17th...the holy bible...

[Dor]

Originally Posted by Francis king

it says so in that other infallible text, 17th...the holy bible...

Oh really where at????

[Francis king]

if u pore over it, u will only find mention of seven archangels...

[sara[h]ng]

Originally Posted by Francis king

if u pore over it, u will only find mention of seven archangels...

That's not the same thing as the Bible declaring that only 7 ever existed.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Francis king

if u pore over it, u will only find mention of seven archangels...

You sure you're reading the bible? Where does it mention seven archangels...

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

End of the day, aren't we all just crackpots?

that sums it up. debating religion is like watching I Love Lucy reruns. You know exactly what is going to happen & what Ricky is going to say to Lucy. though some do smoke more crack & pot than others.

now back to spirit guides, what are they.