Alfred
Trevor Barker was a theosophist who transcribed the letters that the
masters Kuthumi and Morya wrote to the Englishmen Alfred Sinnett and
Allan Hume, and at the end of this book known as 'The Mahatma Letters,' he added the following text where he gave his analysis about the
debate that has existed in the theosophical movement about whether Mars
and Mercury are part of the terrestrial planetary chain (and in purple I
added my comments).
MARS AND MERCURY
Mr. Sinnett in his posthumous work 'The Early Days of Theosophy in Europe' reopens this old controversy, and in the course of his remarks he makes many insinuations of a personal nature against Madame Blavatsky which are as untrue of her, as they are unworthy of her old colleague.
(I
am impressed that until the end of his life Mr. Sinnett continued to
insist that Blavatsky was wrong when it is clear that he was the one who
was mistaken.)
For example, in Chapter IX p. 92 of that work after saying that Madame Blavatsky had stated in The Secret Doctrine that he had made a great mistake in representing Mars, Mercury, and the Earth as belonging to the same planetary chain, he continues on the same page:
« The letter from the Master from which she (H.P.B.) professed to give extract was not what she represents it, an answer to enquiries of her own, but a garbled version of a letter originally addressed to me. »
Two different letters are in reality here referred to — the first, addressed to Mr. Sinnett, was quoted from on p. 163, Vol. I of The Secret Doctrine; the second, addressed to Mdme. Blavatsky is quoted on p. 165; the former is contained in the present volume, but the latter is not.
(On
page 163, Blavatsky quoted the answer that Master Kuthumi gave to Mr.
Sinnett, and on page 165, Blavatsky transcribed the answer that the
master gave her, in which he states that Mars and Mercury are not part
of the terrestrial chain. I have transcribed them at the end of this
article.)
On page 94 of the same work appears the following:
« Eventually when . . . Mrs. Besant, by the expansion of her own knowledge had ascertained definitely that Mars and Mercury did belong to our chain with functions in evolution as I had originally described them, she did publish a statement to that effect in 'Lucifer' vol. XVII. p. 271. »
For the convenience of those not having access to the volumes of Lucifer the passage referred to is here quoted in full together with a former statement by Mrs. Besant on the same subject:
Extract from the magazine 'Lucifer' for November, 1893, Vol. XIII., p. 206.
«
MARS AND THE EARTH
The apparent contradiction between the teaching of the Masters as put forward by their direct messenger H. P. Blavatsky, and as understood by Mr. Sinnett, is capable of very easy explanation. The solution turns on the words 'Solar System.'
If that term be held to denote the solar system known to Western Science, the sentence given by Mr. Sinnett is meaningless; but reference to the series of letters from which the isolated passage respecting Mars is quoted at once shows the meaning attached to the 'Solar System' in the correspondence.
I naturally turned to the letters themselves —copies of which I have— to solve the puzzle, and I found that Master K.H. used the term in a special and quite definite sense.
He explains three kinds of Manvantaras, Pralayas etc.— universal, solar and minor. A minor Manvantara is composed of seven Rounds i.e. the circuit seven times of a Planetary Chain of seven Globes. To such a chain our Earth belongs. A Solar Period consists of seven of such sevenfold Rounds i.e. forty-nine; seven such Planetary Chains compose a 'Solar System'; in three of such chains, our Earth, Mars and Mercury, form the D Globe.
Globe D of the Mars Chain, and Globe D of the Mercury Chain are visible to us, because those chains are sufficiently near our own in evolution, one behind us, one ahead of us, for their matter to affect our senses, while the remaining four chains are too far away in evolution to have enough in common with us for visibility.
Mars and Mercury bear a special relation to our Earth in the whole evolution of the Solar System, though not part of the Earth Chain.
The other four Planetary Chains belonging to our Solar System are too far behind us or in front of us for even their Globes D to be seen.
"Other planets in the solar system of Science as arranged in the West do not belong to the Solar System of the Esoteric Philosophy; and it is the ignoring of this which has led to the confusion.
A western reader naturally gives the term his own sense not knowing that in the teachings it was used in quite a different one. And so, once more we find the Masters' doctrines self-consistent.
Annie Besant. »
Extract from 'Lucifer' for December, 1895, Vol. XVII, p. 271.
« The old Mars and Mercury discussion has been lately revived to some extent in Theosophical circles, and an appeal has been made to me to say if any further light has been thrown upon the subject.
In Lucifer vol. XIII. p. 206, I wrote an explanation which seemed satisfactory so far as the documents then in my hands were concerned.
I was leaving for India when I wrote this paragraph and Mr. Sinnett kept silence, in his generous way, during my absence; but on my return he showed me the original letter on which the statement in Esoteric Buddhism was founded, the letter partially quoted in The Secret Doctrine (i. 187 {163 orig.ed.}); this letter was one of those received in the early days and was not among those of which I had copies.
This original letter left no doubt as to the Master's statement on the point, for it said categorically that Mars and Mercury made part of the chain of which our Earth is the fourth globe.
As the Society was then disturbed over Mr. Judge's affair, Mr. Sinnett did not wish the question to be revived merely to justify himself, but there is no reason now why the matter should not be put straight.
The facts are these; the planetary chain consists of Globes A, B, Mars, Earth, Mercury, F and G, and round these the great life-wave has swept three times and a half, reaching Earth for the fourth time; the mass of humanity passed from Mars to the Earth, and will pass from the Earth to Mercury.
But the leading class of humanity —and here is a fact that throws some light on the opposing statements— did not share in this general evolution. It came directly to the earth from another region at a much later period in evolution, and had never been on Mars at all.
Another fact, which H.P.B. evidently had in mind, when writing on this question, is that Mars is also concerned in an entirely different evolution, as to which nothing can be publicly said.
It is therefore impossible to clear the matter up to the satisfaction of exoteric students, but it is just that it should be publicly stated that Mr. Sinnett's statement is entirely borne out by the original letter. »
It will be at once seen that in the first of the above statements Lucifer Vol. XIII, Mrs. Besant in the main supports the explanation given in The Secret Doctrine, while in the second, Vol. XVII she says, that the letter partially quoted on page 163 of The Secret Doctrine Vol. I. categorically states "that Mars and Mercury made part of the chain of which our Earth is the fourth globe."
(It's surprising how easily manipulated Annie Besant was.)
The letter referred to was among those left by Mr. Sinnett and it is therefore possible to examine the facts in the light of the original document.
The passage quoted will be found on page 176 {Letter 23b} of this volume in the paragraph numbered (23), and with due deference to Mrs. Besant, it must be pointed out that there is nothing in that paragraph or the remainder of the letter, which can be construed into a categorical statement "that Mars and Mercury made part of the chain of which our Earth is fourth Globe."
Attention has been drawn to the fact that Mdme. Blavatsky was not accurate in her quotation of the Master's letter to the extent that she added the word "etc." and omitted the word "yet" — and there are some who would like to convince themselves and others that this fact is sufficient to invalidate the whole of H.P.B.'s exposition of the teaching regarding the nature of the septenary planetary chains.
It should be evident to every student that in reality, at the worst, this mis-quotation invalidates the hypothesis which Mdme. Blavatsky offered as a possible explanation of Mr. Sinnett's misunderstanding, and it leaves utterly untouched the doctrine of the septenary chain with one physical globe which is implied in every line of The Secret Doctrine and is in fact an integral part of the esoteric philosophy.
As stated over and over again and from every point of view in these pages of The Secret Doctrine (Vol. I., pp. 162-9)
« Neither Mars nor Mercury belong to our chain. They are, along with other planets, septenary Units in the great host of ‘chains’ of our system, and all are as visible as their upper globes are invisible. »
(p.164)
And again:
« Moreover, the one eternal Law unfolds everything in the (to be) manifested Nature on a sevenfold principle; among the rest, the countless circular chains of worlds, composed of seven globes, graduated on the four lower planes of the world of formation (the three others belonging to the Archetypal Universe).
Out of these seven only one, the lowest and the most material of those globes, is within our plane or means of perception, the six others lying outside of it and being therefore invisible to the terrestrial eye.
. . .
To make it clearer: we are told of the planets — of which seven only were held as sacred, as being ruled by the highest regents or gods, ... that each of these, whether known or unknown, is a septenary, as is the chain to which the Earth belongs; ... while the superior fellow-globes of these planets are on other planes quite outside that of our terrestrial senses.
. . .
These invisible companions correspond curiously to that which we call ‘The principles in Man.’ The seven are on three material planes and one spiritual plane (I
believe there was a printing error here, as it is the other way around:
the six subtle globes of a planetary chain are found on three spiritual
solar planes, and globe D –that is, the physical one– is on the solar plane where physical matter is found.) »
(SD I, p.152-153)
And again:
« But it may be stated that our satellite is only the gross body of its invisible principles. Seeing then that there are 7 Earths, so there are 7 Moons, the last one alone being visible; the same for the Sun, whose visible body is called a Maya, a reflection, just as man’s body is. "The real Sun and the real Moon are as invisible as the real man," says an occult maxim. »
(SD I, p.179)
Could words be plainer?
Hardly — and yet for over thirty years the Theosophical Society has permitted itself to spread this misleading superstition, preferring to assume that it was Madame Blavatsky who did not understand what she was writing about.
The mystery is after all as clear as it well nigh can be. The septenary chains of Globes about which Theosophical Text Books talk so much, are seven principled Units, each having a physical body and six higher or subtler principles invisible to the ordinary senses, but co-existing and inter-penetrating each other.
Students of Astrology at least are able to prove for themselves that the correspondence between man and a planet is exact; for just as the six invisible principles of a planet correspond to the six invisible principles in man, so do the seven sacred Planets correspond to the whole of the seven principles of our Earth and therefore of man.
How then is it possible that the theory, which credits the Earth Chain with three physical planets, can be correct from any point of view?
It is manifestly ridiculous, because if it were true, it would mean by the occult law of correspondence, that man also must have three physical bodies which is an absurdity, and proves the whole theory false from beginning to end.
The publication of these letters gives to the student an opportunity to examine the whole range of Theosophic teaching in their light —while adding thereto the faculty of criticism— the highest and most discriminative of which he is capable.
That faculty is an impersonal one; it is neither critic nor respecter of persons — for to it persons are without significance. But with ideas — with doctrines, it has everything to do, and if it is inevitable that the use of that faculty by students the world over will reveal many discrepancies in the accepted Theosophical doctrines of the day, it is equally certain that a large part of that teaching will receive a confirmation which cannot be gainsaid.
A. T. B.
CID OBSERVATION
The
folly of the Theosophical Society of Adyar in continuing to support Mr.
Sinnett's error that Mars and Mercury are also part of the terrestrial
planetary chain stems from the fact that Charles Leadbeater also
endorsed this claim, and since Annie Besant blindly believed everything
this individual said, she changed her position and affirmed that this
assertion was true.
And
since the Theosophical Society of Adyar does not want to admit that
Leadbeater was an immense charlatan and that Besant was completely duped
by this individual, its leaders prefer to continue supporting
falsehoods rather than confront this sad reality.
TEXTS
Below I transcribe the indicated texts:
In The Secret Doctrine, Blavatsky wrote the following:
« It was asked: “What planets, of those known to ordinary science, besides Mercury, belong to our system of worlds?”
Now if by “System of Worlds” our terrestrial chain or “string” was intended in the mind of the querist, instead of the “Solar System of Worlds,” as it should have been, then of course the answer was likely to be misunderstood.
For the reply was: “Mars, etc., and four other planets of which astronomy knows nothing. Neither A, B, nor Y, Z are known nor can they be seen through physical means however perfected. »
(SD I, p.163)
Mr.
Sinnett says that this extract is a maliciously mutilated version of
the letter that Master Kuthumi wrote to him. But this assertion is
incorrect because we already have the originals of those letters, and
Mr. Sinnett did indeed ask this question and receive this answer; and
you can verify this for yourselves by reading the Mahatma Letters .
« (23) What other planets of those known to ordinary science, besides Mercury, belong to our system of worlds?
Are the more spiritual planets — A, B & Y, Z — visible bodies in the sky or are all those known to astronomy of the more material sort? »
(ML 23a, p.148)
And Master Kuthumi's reply was:
« Mars and four other planets of which astronomy knows yet nothing.
Neither A, B, nor Y, Z, are known; nor can they be seen through physical means however perfected. »
(ML 23b, p.176)
There I note that Master Kuthumi considered question 23 to be twofold:
1)
The first question was, "What other planets of those known to ordinary science, besides Mercury, belong to our system of worlds?" And
Kuthumi thought that he meant the planets of the solar system and so
he answered: [Besides Earth and Mercury there are] "Mars and four other planets of which astronomy knows yet nothing."
2)
And the second question was "Are the more spiritual planets — A, B & Y, Z — visible bodies in the sky or are all those known to astronomy of the more material sort?" referring to the subtlest globes of the
planetary chain, and so the master answered: "Neither A, B, nor Y, Z, are known; nor can they be seen through physical means however perfected."
As
you can see, Besant lied when she claimed that "This original letter left no doubt as to the Master's statement on the point, for it said categorically that Mars and Mercury made part of the chain of which our Earth is the fourth globe."
And
although Blavatsky, in her explanation, added the word "etc." referring
to the Earth, and omitted the word "yet," and also omitted the second
question that Mr. Sinnett wrote, that doesn't detract from the overall
meaning. So it's grotesque that the Adyardians use this pretext to try
to disavow Blavatsky's critique.
And
the answer that the master gave to Blavatsky when she asked him about
this matter is very categorical on this point, since she wrote:
« When the present work was commenced, the writer [Blavatsky], feeling sure that the speculation about Mars and Mercury was a mistake, applied to the Teachers by letter for explanation and an authoritative version. Both came in due time, and verbatim extracts from these are now given.
“. . . Again, both (Mars and Mercury) are septenary chains, as independent of the Earth’s sidereal lords and superiors as you are independent of the ‘principles’ of Daumling (Tom Thumb) . . ." »
(SD I, p.165)
