Alfred Sinnett was instructed by Master Kuthumi and later he published a book entitled 'Esoteric Buddhism' (1883) in which he summarized these teachings. Unfortunately, Mr.
Sinnett made several errors, the most serious being his assertion that
the terrestrial planetary chain consists of the planets Mercury, Earth,
Mars, plus four other unknown planets.
That is why Blavatsky in her work 'The Secret Doctrine I' (1888) she corrected this error by writing the following on pages 163 to 165.
--oOo--
The erroneous statement that two of the superior Globes of the terrestrial chain were two of our well-known planets:
« Besides the Earth . . . there are only two other worlds of our chain which are visible. . . . Mars and Mercury. . .»
(Esoteric Buddhism, p.136, 5th ed.)
This was a great mistake. But the blame for it is to be attached as much to the vagueness and incompleteness of the Master’s answer as to the question of the learner itself, which was equally vague and indefinite.
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.”
This is plain: (a) Astronomy as yet knows nothing in reality of the planets, neither the ancient ones, nor those discovered in modern times. (b) No companion planets from A to Z, i.e., no upper globes of any chain in the Solar System, can be seen.
As to Mars, Mercury, and “the four other planets,” they bear a relation to Earth of which no master or high Occultist will ever speak, much less explain the nature.
In this same letter the impossibility is distinctly stated: — . . . “Try to understand that you are putting me questions pertaining to the highest initiation; that I can give you (only) a general view, but that I dare not nor will I enter upon details . . .” wrote one of the Teachers to the author of 'Esoteric Buddhism'.
Let it now be distinctly stated, then, that the theory broached is impossible, with or without the additional evidence furnished by modern Astronomy. Physical Science can supply corroborative, though still very uncertain, evidence, but only as regards heavenly bodies on the same plane of materiality as our objective Universe.
Mars and Mercury, Venus and Jupiter, like every hitherto discovered planet (or those still to be discovered), are all, per se, the representatives on our plane of such chains.
As distinctly stated in one of the numerous letters of Mr. Sinnett’s Teacher, “there are other and innumerable Manvantaric chains of globes which bear intelligent Beings both in and outside our solar system.”
But neither Mars nor Mercury belong to our chain. They are, along with the other planets, septenary Units in the great host of “chains” of our system, and all are as visible as their upper globes are invisible.
If it is still argued that certain expressions in the Teacher’s letters were liable to mislead, the answer comes: — Amen; so it was. The author of 'Esoteric Buddhism' understood it well when he wrote that such are “the traditional modes of teaching . . . by provoking the perplexity” . . . they do, or do not relieve — as the case may be.
At all events, if it is urged that this might have been explained earlier, and the true nature of the planets given out as they now are, the answer comes that:
“It was not found expedient to do so at the time, as it would have opened the way to a series of additional questions which could never be answered on account of their esoteric nature, and thus would only become embarrassing.”
It had been declared from the first and has been repeatedly asserted since that:
1) No Theosophist, not even as an accepted chela [disciple] — let alone lay students — could expect to have the secret teachings explained to him thoroughly and completely, before he had irretrievably pledged himself to the Brotherhood and passed through at least one initiation, because no figures and numbers could be given to the public, for figures and numbers are the key to the esoteric system.
2) That what was revealed was merely the esoteric lining of that which is contained in almost all the exoteric Scriptures of the world-religions — pre-eminently in the Brahmanas, and the Upanishads of the Vedas and even in the Puranas. It was a small portion of what is divulged far more fully now in the present volumes; and even this is very incomplete and fragmentary.
When the present work was commenced, the writer, 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.
«. . . . . It is quite correct that Mars is in a state of obscuration at present, and Mercury just beginning to get out of it. You might add that Venus is in her last Round. . . . . . . . . . . If neither Mercury nor Venus have satellites, it is because of the reasons . . . (vide footnote supra, where those reasons are given), and also because Mars has two satellites to which he has no right. . . . . Phobos, the supposed inner satellite, is no satellite at all. As remarked long ago by Laplace and now by Faye (see comptes rendus, Tome XC., p. 569), Phobos keeps a too short periodic time, and therefore there ‘must exist some defect in the mother idea of the theory’ as Faye justly observes. . . . . 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) — which were perhaps his six brothers, with or without night-caps. . . . . . . . . . ‘Gratification of curiosity is the end of knowledge for some men,’ was said by Bacon, who was as right in postulating this truism, as those who were familiar with it before him were right in hedging off WISDOM from Knowledge, and tracing limits to that which is to be given out at one time. . . . Remember: —
". . . . . . . . . . knowledge dwells
In heads replete with thoughts of other men,
Wisdom in minds attentive to their own. . . ."
You can never impress it too profoundly on the minds of those to whom you impart some of the esoteric teachings. . . »
OBSERVATIONS
Astronomers group the planets of the solar system into various categories. For example, there are the rocky inner planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. There are the gas giants: Jupiter and Saturn. There are the ice giants: Uranus and Neptune.
Well, the Trans-Himalayan masters also have their groupings of the planets in the solar system, but theirs are esoteric. And when Mr. Sinnett asked Master Kuthumi, "What planets, besides Mercury, belong to our system of worlds?"
Master
Kuthumi assumed that Mr. Sinnett was referring to the group of planets
that includes Mercury and Earth; and so he replied: "Mars, Mercury, Earth and four other planets about which astronomy knows nothing."
But
Alfred Sinnett believed that Master Kuthumi was referring to the
terrestrial chain, which shows that Mr. Sinnett did not understand this subject well because planetary chains are something else that I will
explain to you next.
Just
as humans are composed of seven principles (a physical body and six subtle),
under the Law of Correspondence which says that "as it is in the small,
so it is in the large," the planets are also composed of seven principles (a physical globe and six subtle), which are called 'the seven globes that
make up a planetary chain'.
To
say that Mars and Mercury are part of the terrestrial chain is an
aberration because it would be equivalent to saying that humans are made
up of three different physical bodies.
And
in reality each physical planet (visible or invisible to the physical
eye) is the densest globe in a planetary chain that is also composed of
six other subtle globes.
~ * ~
Unfortunately,
Mr. Sinnett did not accept Blavatsky's correction, and he continued to
teach his lie, which was later taken up by other pseudo-instructors of
esotericism.
No comments:
Post a Comment