Re: Theos-World Re: 4th sub-race
Feb 03, 2009 06:03 PM
by Cass Silva
Thanks for this Govert it has helped a lot.
It states that the Anglo Saxon is the 5th subrace of the seven but that we share this globe with 4th subrace peoples (probably Original Semite, Akkadian-Mongolian (Japanese Malay)
Looking at the 5th Aryan it seems that the first 4 sub races, that is Hindu Egyptian, Arian Semite, Iranian and reached the pinnacle of their particular cycle of civilization and some monads are celtic - at various cycles in their evolution.Â
If we are going to say that HPB said we are 5th root Race Aryans then she must be referring to those who have reached mid point Celtic with some monads evolving to 1st sub race Teutonic while others remain between mid point and high point Celtic.
If we are in a minor cycle perhaps we can take clues from the geographical location of 6th and 7th sub races of the 5th RR - viz Austral American and Latin America - one presumes that these monads will remain in those parts of the world.
As Posiedonis went down 11,000 years ago and Blavatsky tells us that major cycles occur ever 16,000 years can we pinpoint a date of the next major cataclysmic cycle?
Please correct any of my misunderstanding
--- On Wed, 4/2/09, Frank Reitemeyer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
From: Frank Reitemeyer <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: 4th sub-race
Received: Wednesday, 4 February, 2009, 2:48 AM
>From the quotes below (the 'dead letter' interpretation) it looks like
we are in Root-race 5 (Aryan), Sub-race 5 (Teutonic). Two quotes from
HPB and one by 'Alpha' reflecting the understanding of a member. This
understanding is also reflected in a little graph by Jinarajadasa,
which some might call the Besant-Leadbeater interpretation, but might
very well be in accordance with HPB. See:
http://users. ez2.net/nick29/ theosophy/ lessons15. htm
Thank you, Govert, for the link to the graph of the Besant-Leadbeater
interpretation of the doctrine of the races.
>From where to they have the names of the races? From HPB?
>From their "Maha-Chohan" ? Or from the Logos?
If HPB contradicted herself, and if to save her from the charge of
inconsistency by saying that some of her statements were blinds, in
what way are we to reconcile these contradictions? How do we know
what's a blind and what not? And if a contradiction is found and one
of the statements therefore allegedly a blind, does that make the
subject more important?
I hope, that HPB contradicted herself, as Europeans still greatest
metaphysicial - if not theosophist - Hegel says, that a contradiction is
always the sign of the truth and th enon-contradiction the sign of the
How do we know? Simply by studying the mystery language.
I don't think that a blind comes always with a contradiction, but I hope
that HPB used contradictions to make it easier for lay-chelas to understand.
Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application