Re: Theos-World John Algeo on Modern Theosophy
Jul 16, 2007 04:32 PM
by Pablo Sender
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",
"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
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
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 email@example.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
> in the BCW I can find. You can't compare Bailey or CW Bedwetter
> Pablo writes: >Kumaras, Manasaputras and Agnisvattas are the same
> entities: before, during and after having passed through the human
> Pablo, I think you might be pretty stupid. Any Blavatsky school-
> 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
> you don't even understand this!
> Also, Each of the lokas and talas, no doubt, would have "sub-
> and sub-talas" within it, corresponding with the appropriate talas
> lokas, I would expect. Just as each of the human principles has 7
> sub-principles in it corresponding to the main principles. Basics
> theosophic study, I would think. Maybe you should read more GdeP.
> - jake j.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Pablo Sender" <pasender@> wrote:
> > Hi Frank
> > Let's go to the root of the thing. It is Ok to me if you support
> > teachings. That's your right. I cannot do it because when
> > obscure matters in the SD and going to his books for some light,
> > never found an answer, only discrepancies (from my point of
> > 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
> > stage. A nice idea, but it doesn't fit with HPB's in several
> > One of them: if a Kumara is a spiritually passive entity before
> > passing through the human experience, Why is Sanat Kumara & Co.
> > evolved Beings) called that way, and not Sanat Agnisvatta, for
> > example?
> > 2 - GdeP says Talas are states on the descending (involutive) arc
> > Lokas are states on the ascending (evolutive) arc. But then, in
> > 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
> > another in different moments, because Loka is a psychic state
> > 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
> > his teachings may be useful to other people, or my understanding
> > reveal a different thing in the future, so I would not call it
> > Theosophy nor even Neo-Theosophy. All those derogative terms are
> > seed of dogmatism and sectarianism.
> > What would you want? A theosophical inquisition? Kill
> > I think that's far below the level of an aspirant to become a
> > 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
> > emotional when coming to different theosophical leaders? I can
> > 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
> > let me tell you, his teachings are far more distant from
> > than Leadbeater's teachings from her.
> > Are you aware of HPB's statements as the following?:
> > ". . . Every great thinker and philosopher, especially every
> > of a new religion, school of philosophy, or sect, is necessarily
> > 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
> > not to notice them (In the September issue of The Theosophist
> > 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
> > different theosophical leaders. Seriously, with respect,
> > without saying "this is Theosophy, that is not".
> > Well, that's for the time being
> > All the best
> > p
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application