H.T. EDGE...POST GRADUATE STUDIES TODAY AT THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF LONDON...SEE BELOW FOR ROOT RACES

[Guest guest]

--- Bhakti Ananda Goswami <bhakti.eohn

wrote: H.T. EDGE...POST GRADUATE STUDIES TODAY

> AT THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF LONDON...SEE BELOW FOR

> ROOT RACES

> Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:24:57 -0800

>

> H.T. EDGE... POST GRADUATE STUDIES TODAY AT THE

> ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF LONDON...SEE BELOW FOR ROOT

> RACES

> EDGE AND CHURCH OF ENGLAND...EDGE ON

> CHRISTIANITY...EDGE ON EVOLUTION...

> http://web.rhul.ac.uk/Theosophy/For-Postgraduates/

> Postgraduate taught courses

> 1.. Professor Charles J. Ryan, What Is Theosophy?

> 2.. Dr. Leoline L. Wright,

> a.. Reincarnation: A Lost Chord in Modern

> Thought

> b.. The Seven Principles of Man

> c.. After Death -- What?

> d.. Mahatmas and Chelas

> 3.. Gertrude W. van Pelt

> a.. Karma: The Law of Consequences

> b.. Rounds and Races: Our Divine Parentage and

> Destiny

> c.. Hierarchies: The Ladder of Life

> 4.. Dr Henry T. Edge

> a.. Evolution

> b.. The Astral Light

> c.. Theosophy and Christianity

> 5.. Lydia Ross, The Doctrine of Cycles

> 6.. Helen Savage, Psychic Powers

> 7.. Grace F. Knoche, The Mystery Schools

> 8.. Charles J. Ryan, Yoga and Yoga Discipline

>

********************************************************************************\

********************************************************************************\

***************

>

>

http://theosociety.org/pasadena/gdpmanu/th-xity/th-xty1.htm

> Theosophical University Press Online Edition

>

> Theosophy and Christianity

> By H. T. Edge

>

>

>

--

>

>

> Published as part of a set in the 1930s and '40s by

> Theosophical University Press; Revised Electronic

> Edition copyright © 1998 by Theosophical University

> Press. Electronic version ISBN 1-55700-102-2. All

> rights reserved. This edition may be downloaded for

> off-line viewing without charge. No part of this

> publication may be reproduced or transmitted for

> commercial or other use in any form or by any means,

> electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or

> otherwise, without the prior permission of

> Theosophical University Press. Because of current

> limitations in ASCII character fonts, and for ease

> in searching, no diacritical marks appear in the

> electronic version of the text.

>

> Chapter 1

> Introductory

> Theosophy is the essential truth underlying all

> religions and does not recognize any one religion as

> being supreme over the others or as the last word of

> truth. It is not hostile to Christianity, but finds

> itself obliged to combat many things which it

> considers alien to the genuine Christian gospel and

> which have gradually crept in since that gospel was

> originally proclaimed. Among these is the idea that

> Christianity is paramount among religions or that it

> is a final revelation of divine truth, superseding

> other faiths. This idea is contrary to the truth and

> is becoming more and more difficult to maintain. For

> this there are two principal reasons. 1) Ancient

> religions have been widely and intensively studied,

> especially those of India, which have become

> accessible through the knowledge of Sanskrit. 2)

> Intercommunication between nations has grown so wide

> and intimate. These two causes combine to prevent

> the exclusive attitude of mind which was possible in

> past times. But it is hard to give up cherished

> habits and, moreover, people imagine that if they

> surrender the paramouncy of Christianity they will

> be surrendering religion itself. And so we find

> strange expedients resorted to in the attempt to

> account for the existence in more ancient religions

> of so many of the doctrines and rituals which were

> supposed to be peculiar to Christianity. The Abbe

> Huc, in his celebrated Travels in Tartary, Tibet,

> and China, describes how he found among the Tibetan

> priests not only many characteristic doctrines of

> the Roman Church but even many of their rituals,

> vestures, and sacred implements. His explanation is

> that the Devil thus anticipated Christianity in

> order to deceive mankind; to which he adds a theory

> that early Christian missionaries may have

> penetrated to Tibet. A recent improvement on this is

> found in a theory which we have just seen in a book

> published under the auspices of a well-known

> Christian propagation society, to the effect that

> the lofty doctrines found in India's sacred books

> were due to the work of the Holy Spirit, who thus

> prepared mankind for the "greater things than these"

> to come in the future. But still it rests with him

> to show that the Christianity which came was really

> greater.

>

> There are various brands of broad-church

> Christianity, which seek to enlarge the scope of the

> religions so as to take in many things now known to

> man but which did not occupy the minds of our

> forefathers; but the difficulty with them is to

> enlarge the gospel sufficiently without destroying

> its identity as Christianity; and again, if a body

> of water be widened without increasing its volume,

> the result is to make it shallower.

>

> At the Church Congress in October, 1935, the Very

> Rev. W. R. Matthews, Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral,

> London, said that until recently almost the whole of

> Christendom would have said that there is one

> revelation of God, and that it is to be found in the

> Bible; but (he continued) the supreme revelation is

> not wholly external and we cannot recognize the

> "Word made Flesh" unless the Word is within us. He

> went on to say:

>

> God does not dictate from heaven a creed or

> articles of faith. He manifests Himself through the

> experience and personalities of His prophets and of

> His Son. The doctrines of the Church are formulas in

> which the revelation has been summed up, guarded and

> preserved. . . . It may be that more adequate

> expressions will be found hereafter for the

> spiritual heritage that they have been formed to

> express. . . . The Holy Spirit will guide us into

> new truth.

> When such eminent and leading authorities are

> conceding so much, we can hardly be accused of being

> altogether unorthodox; we are merely pointing out

> some of the logical conclusions to which the Dean's

> admissions inevitably point.

>

> These various attempts all tend to the confession

> that religions change with the times, that humanity

> progresses independently of them, and that they must

> keep up with the needs of humanity or else become a

> drag upon progress. Yet we cannot on this account

> reject all religious truth and lapse into one of the

> forms of unbelief, atheism, or materialism. We must

> not throw away the substance with the outgrown form.

> An organized religious system, with its creed, its

> prescribed ritual, its church organization, is a

> spirit imbodied in a form; and like every other

> organism, the form has to undergo continual change,

> though the spirit within may ever be the same. These

> are facts which cannot be disputed by anyone with a

> modicum of historical knowledge or an acquaintance

> with the general laws of growth and evolution.

>

> But there can be only one truth. Religion itself,

> apart from creeds and churches, is a recognition and

> observance of the basic laws of the universe. These

> basic laws are also inherent in man himself, so that

> the real eternal and universal religion is based on

> the facts of human nature and must remain the same

> as long as man is man. The most essential truth is

> that man is a divine spirit incarnate in an animal

> body; that his salvation consists in subduing his

> lower nature by means of his higher; and that the

> true law of human conduct is that which is expressed

> in the Golden Rule. This truth lies at the base of

> all religions, and Christianity, so far from having

> originated it, or even improved it, has merely

> inherited it.

>

> It is necessary to refer briefly to certain

> theosophical teachings which will be found more

> fully treated elsewhere, and one of these is the

> teaching as to the wisdom-religion or secret

> doctrine. This is knowledge concerning the deepest

> mysteries of nature and man, but in the present

> cycle of human evolution, it is unknown to mankind

> in general. During this cycle therefore it rests

> under the guardianship of the Masters of Wisdom, or

> the Great Lodge of initiates, whose function it is

> to preserve the sacred knowledge and to communicate

> it to the world at appropriate times and in

> appropriate places. They accomplish this work in

> several ways: one is by sending out a messenger from

> themselves, who appears among mankind, gathers a

> body of disciples, founds an esoteric school in

> which to give private instruction, and also gives

> exoteric teaching to the multitude.

>

> "And he said, Unto you it is given to know the

> mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in

> parables; that seeing they might not see, and

> hearing they might not understand." -- Luke 8:10

> "And with many such parables spake he the word

> unto them [the people], as they were able to hear

> it. But without a parable spake he not unto them:

> and when they were alone, he expounded all things to

> his disciples." -- Mark, 4:33-4

> But after the withdrawal of the teacher, the

> movement which he has started undergoes changes and

> degeneration. It falls under the influence of

> worldly motives and forces; it becomes formalized;

> it breaks up into schools and sects; it acquires

> various organic forms with churches, priesthood, and

> creeds. The process can be traced in the history of

> religions in general; it can be traced in

> Christianity, so that the Christianity of today is

> not in any of its forms the original gospel as given

> by the founder.

>

> It will be well to say a few words about the

> attitude towards Christians which we here adopt.

> That attitude will be sympathetic, and not merely

> from feeling but from knowledge. For the writer,

> having been brought up in the Church of England and

> having in early life been a sincere Christian, is

> thereby qualified to speak with more sympathy and

> understanding than is sometimes the case with those

> who can view Christianity only from the outside.

> Moreover, there will not be the same likelihood of

> falling into the common forensic error of

> misrepresenting the case of one's opponent in a

> controversy, of comparing what is best in theosophy

> with what is worst in Christianity, or of attacking

> men of straw or flogging dead horses.

>

>

********************************************************************************\

********************************************************************************\

***************

>

>

http://theosociety.org/pasadena/gdpmanu/evol-edg/evo-1.htm

>

> Theosophical University Press Online Edition

>

> Evolution

> By Henry T., Edge, M.A., D. Litt.

>

>

>

>

--

>

>

> Published as part of a set in the 1930s and '40s by

> Theosophical University Press; Revised Electronic

> Edition copyright © 1998 by Theosophical University

> Press. Electronic version ISBN 1-55700-106-5. All

> rights reserved. This edition may be downloaded for

> off-line viewing without charge. No part of this

> publication may be reproduced or transmitted for

> commercial or other use in any form or by any means,

> electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or

> otherwise, without the prior permission of

> Theosophical University Press. Because of current

> limitations in ASCII character fonts, and for ease

> in searching, no diacritical marks appear in the

> electronic version of the text.

>

> ...

> MAN THE MOST PRIMITIVE STOCK

>

> According to the teachings as to evolution given by

> theosophy, and speaking for the present only of

> evolution in this fourth round or terrestrial cycle,

> mankind was actually the original and root stock of

> the mammalians, and the other stocks have sprung

> from the human stem. This accounts for these

> primitive and simple conformations in the human

> body. In the various animal stocks we find

> specializations of particular organs and functions,

> such as wings, trunks, claws, horns, gills. These,

> according to the theory which evolutionists have

> been trying to establish, are features which have

> been discarded; but their presence is much more

> consistent with the theosophical doctrine of

> evolution than with the theory of the evolutionists.

> According to the theosophical doctrine, the human

> stem threw off from itself the germs of the future

> animal stocks, and these germs then proceeded to

> develop and specialize, each along its own peculiar

> line, so that as time went on the tendency was

> towards ever wider divergence. And a candid study of

> the facts shows that this is the case; for it is

> found that species do actually tend to specialize

> along their own lines, rather than to pass by

> gradation into other species.

>

> In saying that the germs which afterwards developed

> into the mammals were thrown off from the human

> stem, it is necessary to add a qualification and to

> explain why we said "human stem" rather than

> "mankind." The events referred to took place in the

> very far past, and since then the human race has

> been developing, so that the humanity from which the

> mammals were thrown off was very different from the

> humanity of today. It is also necessary to bear in

> mind that, in a universe where everything evolves,

> matter itself has been evolving; and that its

> present stage, which we call physical represents the

> latest phase of a continuous succession of phases or

> states through which matter has passed. The process

> by which the germs or seeds which were afterwards to

> evolve into the mammalian stocks were thrown off is

> one that biologists call budding or gemmation. The

> present human organism is not able to produce

> offspring in this way, though this method of

> reproduction exists today in some of the lower

> orders of creatures.

>

> So the question, Did the animals descend from

> mankind? can be answered both Yes and No; they did

> descend in the way described here, but not in the

> Darwinian sense. They did not come from human beings

> by procreation and as the end product of a

> single-line upward evolution; the germs of the

> animal stocks did proceed from the human stock, at a

> time in the far past when that human stock was not

> like what it is now. Thus the type of evolution in

> the animate kingdoms is like a tree with a main

> trunk, branch trunks, boughs, twigs, and leaves.

> This is quite different from the single-line type of

> evolution at first imagined, and science itself is

> coming more and more to this tree-like form of

> evolution, as facts accumulate and as studies

> progress.

>

>

>

>

--

>

>

> MAN DESCENDS FROM -- MAN

>

> The ancestors of man were -- man himself; prehuman

> perhaps, but still human. And this necessitates that

> something be said as to what man is and whence he

> has come.

>

> The human being came into existence on the spiritual

> plane as an unself-conscious spark of divinity,

> destined, after cycles of evolution, to return to

> unity with the divine essence from whence it sprang.

> It is a monad, a germ of the universal life. The

> monads destined to become human were thus godlike

> beings who came to earth in the earliest days of the

> planet's life. The first physical mankind existed on

> this earth 18,000,000 years ago; but before that,

> mankind existed on earth in astral or ethereal form.

> Here is a point which the modern theories have

> overlooked -- that matter itself evolves, and that

> the earth was not always physical. This has a great

> bearing on the whole picture of paleontology, and

> many difficulties arise from supposing that the

> conditions and properties of matter were the same in

> very remote periods as they are now.

>

> In the present globe-round of cosmic evolution,

> there are seven human root-races, of which we are

> now in the fifth. The first root-race was in

> Paleozoic times. Each of these root-races had its

> own peculiar form and its peculiar method of

> reproduction, the first by fission, the second by

> budding, the third by androgynous generation and egg

> laying. These methods are still found in some kinds

> of animals. The present method of sexual

> reproduction is a passing phase. The progenitors of

> the mammalian stocks were the first physical humans

> and the astral-ethereal humans who preceded them. At

> this time mankind was "mindless" -- that is, it was

> instinctual, for the light of self-consciousness had

> not yet been kindled. Human beings were able at that

> time to start the evolution of the various mammalian

> types by the cells or seeds cast off from their own

> bodies. These then pursued each its own special line

> of evolution, thus during the ages producing those

> widely divergent types which we see today.

>

> Thus far we have spoken of the mammalia; there

> remain the types below, namely reptiles, birds,

> fishes, etc. These did not issue from the human stem

> in this globe-round of the great evolutionary cycle,

> but in a preceding globe-round. It is thus seen that

> the plan of evolution is much more complex than has

> been supposed. We do not propose to go into it here

> more fully or in more detail; and this may cause

> what is said to appear scrappy; but the plan is

> fully elaborated in other theosophical writings, and

> its consistency can there be seen.

>

>

>

>

--

>

>

> MAN AND THE APES

>

> A special case has to be noted as regards the two

> classes of simians, the anthropoids and the monkeys.

> As surmised by many scientists, these are from

> mankind and not toward it. But they differ from the

> other mammals in the way in which they were derived

> from the human stem. The early race of mankind

> spoken of above as being "mindless" allied

> themselves with certain of the animals existing at

> that time, and from this union sprang a hybrid race

> which is the ancestry of the present monkeys (as

> distinguished from anthropoid apes). It is not right

> to call this miscegenation a crime, as such an act

> would be regarded today, because neither the humans

> nor the animals concerned in it were like the humans

> and animals of today. They were much more like each

> other; the distance between human and animal was not

> so great. Hence a fertile union was possible, and

> also a fertile offspring able to perpetuate its own

> race. Moreover, the humans being mindless were

> incapable of sin, and their acts were instinctual.

> This took place during the Mesozoic Age.

>

> As to the manlike apes, their history is as follows.

> At a later date, during the Miocene period, when the

> fourth great root-race of humanity had passed its

> climax, certain degenerate remnants thereof repeated

> the act of the "mindless" (as just mentioned), by

> allying themselves with the then existing simian

> stock; and thus sprang the anthropoid apes. This act

> was, however, one of bestiality, a sin, because

> these humans were not mindless but endowed with

> self-consciousness. It is still to be observed,

> however, that human and animals were even then not

> far enough apart to prevent a fertile and

> self-productive union. Neither man nor monkey were

> the same as now, both having since evolved along

> their respective lines.

>

> Such is the story of the origin of the apes and

> monkeys; and proofs of its truth are to be found in

> a study of the anatomical features of mankind and

> the anthropoids, which will be seen to confirm the

> above teaching rather than the view that humanity

> has developed from the ape, or that both have

> developed from a common animal stock.

>

>

>

>

--

>

>

> SPIRITUAL URGE IN EVOLUTION

>

> It is clear, then, that we can accept evolution

> without disparaging human nature; all we need to do

> is to get the doctrine straight and complete, not

> twisted and partial. It is materialism, not

> evolution, that denies the divinity of man. The

> human being is not his body; the latter may be a

> product of evolution from below, but man himself is

> a self-conscious being, with infinite untapped

> resources within. It is this infinite part which has

> come from above; this is the fire which has kindled

> in the animal body the fire of genius.

>

> We stated that, in one sense, mankind is from the

> animals; which means that human body is the result

> of ages of evolution through lower kingdoms. But

> such evolution upward could never have been

> accomplished without a simultaneous involution of

> spirit into matter from above. It is the universal

> life, consciousness, spirit (an exact term is hard

> to find) which is the cause of evolution, in seeking

> to build for itself new and better mansions on

> earth. But life, consciousness, and spirit are mere

> abstractions in themselves, they are the attributes

> of living beings, and these living beings are the

> monads, of various classes and degrees.

>

> Monads are sparks or atoms of the universal life.

> They are spiritual beings, and may be regarded as

> the ultimate seed or germ of every living thing,

> down to the smallest atom or particle. Each of these

> germs starts its own line of evolution; in it lies

> stored up and latent the potentiality of all that

> will develop from it. Thus the whole universe is the

> scene of a host of such living, evolving beings.

> They are at varying stages of their evolution. When

> spirit first begins to involve itself in matter, the

> evolution is very slow, so that long ages are passed

> in the lower kingdoms of nature -- the mineral, and

> before that the three elemental kingdoms, then the

> vegetable, and so on.

>

> Individualization begins in the plants, develops

> farther in the animals, and is completed in mankind.

> But observe, it is not the organic forms that change

> one into another, but the indwelling monads, which

> inhabit one form after another, as their evolution

> requires. Thus the forms may remain stationary or

> nearly so for long periods, while all the time

> evolution is proceeding.

>

>

>

>

--

>

>

> EVOLUTIONARY WAVES

>

> It is interesting to note here that some scientists

> have noticed that new varieties of plants or animals

> appear suddenly; this is in response to a particular

> urge from within, requiring the production of that

> kind of a body for the expression of what is within

> the monad.

>

> All this has an important bearing on past evolution,

> as recorded in the paleontological record, and

> clears up many puzzles which that record has

> presented. While it is true on the whole that the

> types get lowlier as we recede into the past, yet

> the development has been by no means uniform. There

> have been great bursts of some particular type, like

> that of the reptiles in the Mesozoic Age, which

> attained such enormous development and gigantic

> size, and has dwindled until the little sun lizard

> represents the once gigantic saurian. At one time

> there was an immense development of tree ferns, at

> another of ammonites, and so on. Concurrently with

> this evolution of the plants and animals, there were

> changes in the structure of the earth, the

> distribution of the land and water, the nature of

> the atmosphere, the temperature and pressure, and

> other geophysical conditions; all of which makes the

> plan of evolution much more variegated than that of

> simple lineal descent.

>

> Theosophy agrees with Darwinism in the belief that

> there is a law of gradual and extremely slow

> evolution embracing many million years. But it is

> necessary to distinguish between the fact of

> evolution and the manner of it; and in this latter

> point theosophy may find itself in disagreement. And

> yet again there is the question of the cause of

> evolution, another moot question subject to diverse

> opinions.

>

> One evolutionist is quoted as holding that evolution

> is accomplished by the agency of the "energies"

> which are intrinsic in the evolving matter, and

> without interference from agencies external to

> matter. Here we find a good example of the method of

> evading a prime difficulty by the use of an

> undefined word -- in this case "intrinsic" -- which

> really begs the whole question to be solved. The

> word was probably used to exclude the action of a

> divine creator and thus to distinguish the

> evolutionary theory from that of special creation.

> But it really replaces one difficulty by another of

> equal or greater magnitude. In the first place, it

> might prove hard to distinguish between intrinsic

> and extrinsic, to say just what is within matter and

> what is without. Is an "agency intrinsic in matter"

> itself material? If this agency is itself material,

> then we have not solved the problem but merely moved

> it one stage farther. If the said intrinsic energy

> is not material, then what is it? The whole

> materialistic theory seems to be given away at once.

> Again, if the energy is not material, but is

> immaterial and separate from matter, then what

> becomes of the difference between intrinsic and

> extrinsic? The author of the above remark, however,

> goes on to say that intrinsic properties are a

> "property of the physical basis of tridimensional

> matter." This seems to imply that there can be

> something beyond matter, something which is not

> tridimensional; but the idea is spoilt by calling it

> "physical." It is evident, on any logical reasoning,

> that matter is either actuated by some agency which

> is not material (or not material in the same sense),

> or else this matter is the primum mobile, the

> primary element, the self-created or uncreate

> ultimate cause of all things -- in a word, God.

>

> Logically speaking, mind is prior to matter; for all

> we can know of matter is what we find in our own

> mind. That is, we must assume mind before the

> question can be argued at all. The result of defying

> this fundamental rule of logic is the hopeless

> confusion described above. There seem to have been

> people actually capable of arguing that

> consciousness has been evolved from a matter which

> did not already possess it. Anything from which the

> human mind has evolved must be greater than that

> mind, whether we call it matter or an atom or a

> monad or a God. In this sense it may be true to say

> that evolution is caused by the powers intrinsic in

> matter; but this would then be only another way of

> saying that in every smallest atom there resides in

> potency the whole of whatever may afterwards be

> evolved from it. That is, this atom is a spark of

> the universal spirit -- which is pure theosophical

> teaching.

>

>

>

>

--

>

>

> Section 2

>

> Contents

>

>

>

>

--

>

>

> NOTE:

>

> 1. Anatomical evidence of the primitiveness of the

> human stock, condensed from Man in Evolution

> (chapter 7) and largely taken from Dr. Wood Jones,

> Professor of Anatomy in the University of

> Manchester:

>

> (1) The bones of the human skull articulate both at

> the base of the skull and on the sides of the

> brain-case in a manner characteristic of primitive

> mammalian animals; thus forming a marked contrast

> with the same articulations as found in the

> anthropoid apes and monkeys.

>

> (2) The extreme primitive simplicity of the human

> nasal bones, in contrast with the case of the

> anthropoid and other simian stocks.

>

> (3) In five respects in particular the skull is

> built on primitive mammalian lines, which have been

> departed from in some degree in all monkeys and

> apes: the back wall of the orbit, the metopic

> suture, the form of the jugal bone, the condition of

> the internal pterygoid plate, and the teeth.

>

> (4) The human skeleton, especially in its

> variations, shows the same condition of primitive

> mammalian simplicity.

>

> (5) As to the muscular system, man also retains many

> primitive features which have been lost in the rest

> of the Primates; among which are specially noted the

> pectorals minor, whose attachment to the coracoid

> process is the original and primitive attachment,

> very different from that of the apes and monkeys,

> and still more so from that of many of the

> quadrupeds.

>

> (6) The human tongue is primitive, and no ape or

> monkey has a tongue like the human.

>

> (7) The vermiform appendix is strangely like that of

> some of the marsupials of Australia; it is very

> different in the apes and monkeys.

>

> (8) The great arteries which arise from the arch of

> human aorta have the same number, are of the same

> kind, and are arranged in the same order as in the

> ornithorhynchus anatinus or duck-billed platypus of

> Australia. The apes and monkeys have not this

> arrangement.

>

> (9) In man the premaxilla, the front part of the

> upper jawbone carrying the incisor teeth, does not

> exist as a separate element. But in apes, monkeys,

> and all other mammals, the premaxillary element is

> shown on the face by suture lines, outlining its

> junction with the maxillary bones. (return to text)

>

>

>

>

--

>

>

> Section 2

>

> Contents

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

http://platinum.