Hi All!

 

Yes, a good thread, which seems to have engaged a few participators.

 

Lobsang Rompa; yes I read most of his books (paperback) and rather liked them for the time. Like Isaac Asimov was a pioneer for bringing the sciences to the underinformed public, so lobsang popularised the realms of the spirit with scientific overtones.

 

He was of course  an advocate of Tibet, writing he was a walkin of a 'saffron' monk for an English gentlemen who got tired of the embodiments. And he loved his cats, not so much the humankind.

 

Cheryl's cabala is a powerful esoteric link across all spiritual disciplines, as it embodies the 'secret' or alchemical 'bible' or scriptures on which the western cultures are based.

 

So combining the 'hard to read literally' scriptures with the occultism of the kaballah can shed much light onto the exoteric and endoteric meanings of both.

 

 

 

When was the soul inserted into humankind? The answer was given in a general manner by Clarence. Here is some more elucidation.

 

 

1. The Dawinism can describe the human lineage from anthropological evidence.

 

Primate evolution (proconsul, aegyptopithecus etc.) so 20 million years ago led to the australopithecines, of which many 'prehuman' genuses evolved.

 

So one finds today different species of tiger, say Siberian, Indian and Bengal or different Rhinos in Sumatra, White- and Black African, Indian and Javaian.

 

Or Giraffes or Lions (African and Indian) or Elephants etc.

 

BUT there is only ONE human species now, differentiated in say 5 races: Mongolian, Caucasian, Australian, Indian and Negroid.

 

But australopithecines came as boisei, robustus, africanus and afarensis with afarensis today considered to be our ancestor.

 

So the question is: If afarensis was our ancestor, leading into homo erectus to homo habilis to Neanderthalensis to Cro Magnon and CONTEMPORARY to a great variability  in the flora and fauna evolution; why then did only one homo sapiens sapiens genus survive the process?

 

Allow me to tell you a story.

 

There is a tribe of australopithecines, which lead a normal life of survival and based on normal animal behaviour with dominant males and females and territorial instincts.

 

Then a genetic abnormality occurs. A baby is born with different pigmentations on the skin and so on.

A certain turmoil infiltrates the group. Normally abnormalities of any kind are killed or abandoned; but this baby has no defects as such, but simply is a little different.

Maternal instincts (antilogos), normally 'overruled' by the domionant male become supplemented by a paternal instinct (logos) which 'protects' the baby.

 

The baby lives and grows and mates with a similar opposite sex baby and so on. Families become groups and so on. A 'smarter clan' begins to dominate other clans and tribal dominations and allegiances shift about.

 

This is how Neanderthals 'evolved' from habilis and how Cro Magnon evolved from the earlier stock which drove Neanderthals to extinction and made Cro Magnon the ancestor of modern man.

 

It was not linear of course, but adaptation pressure in true Darwinian fashion.

 

This then is the Darwinian evolution scenario and there is nothing wrong with it as I can see.

 

But a question remains.

 

2. Is the Darwinian evolution only half of it?

 

What caused the paternal instinct to SUPPLEMENT the maternal instinct to protect instead to destroy?

 

Something must have INDUCED the primitive male australopithecine mind to abandon 'common practice' of infanticide and to harbour the genetically mutated offspring.

 

This then brings in the issue of 'Creationism' in a new and scientifically feasable fashion.

 

There is a evolution pressure in the DNA itself. Not as a chemical substructure, which then becomes biologically active (as biochemistry or organic chemistry say), but as a 'survival of the fittest' cliche' now rephrased in terms of 'mental survival'.

 

This mentality is 'spiritual', yet electromagnetically and so physically based on the ideas of consciousness etc.

 

Did the primitive australopithecines have soul? Yes, they did. But their souls were more like the souls of their contemporary fauna, than that of even todays animals.

 

Yes, one can say, that animals in mentally stimulative environments have 'more evolved souls' than their ogliocene ancestors.

 

A chimpanzee of today is 'more evolved' physically and mentally, than a  chimpanzee of 100 years ago and all the way back to a 'common ancestor' of the primate evolution say 20 Million years ago.

 

Animals kept as pets, have a much more 'evolved soul' than their feral counterparts.

There is immense feedback mechanism in the 'evolution of souls' of all sorts. especially if affection, play and 'love' stimulate common environments.

 

So a minimum soul has minimum consciousness. It would be an isolated soul and it would be a Hydrogen atom.

 

Ergo, a mountain has 'soul' and the soul entered the mountain via its physical creation and composition.

The earth has a soul, so 4.7 Billion years old and it is evolving all the time. It is often called Gaia-Consciousness or such.

 

The point of physical conception so defines, when a soul enteres a 'would-be' embryo. It enters when the physical body is created in fusion of the logos and the antilogos.

 

But this gives it all away.

All souls are babies of the logos-yang and the antilogos-yin. Call it God the Father and Dog the Mother if you like - or anything else.

 

The dominant australopithecine father was INDUCED by his own mind to save his mutated baby. His own mind here means that a DNA function 'woke up' or ACTIVATED a process called PERCEPTION, which then led to THINKING AWARENESS or MEMORY or such a notion.

 

Is this 'Intelligent Design'? I could call it that, as a harmonisation between a 'Oversoul' and the individuated soul of the australopithecine father.

 

So did God cause the mutant baby to survive to eventually allow MENTAL EVOLUTION to supplement the PHYSICAL EVOLUTION?

Call it what you like. One is required to DEFINE what one means by 'God' and 'Intelligent Design' and 'Creationism' etc. etc.

 

The Darwinian evolution is well defined and so stable in its nomenclature. It is SCIENTIFIC RELIGION.

 

The mental Co-Darwinian evolution is not. From this stems a most unwarranted, insideous and imo vile war, which is completely unneccessary, should the 'warring sides' reexamine each others and their own definitions of what EXACTLY they are warring about.

 

The MENTAL EVOLUTION is a GROWTH in consciousness and selfawareness. It just so happens that this consciousness is a energy residue in spacetime itself. So one can say, that EVERYTHING is consciousness, even the consciousness/memory/growth of GodDog and the universe itself.

 

A physical Darwinian evolution is and was always complemented by a mental Co-Darwinian evolution. Souls are associated with any polarised duality, but differ enormously in their electric capacity and magnetic inductiveness. A mineral, a rose and a complex animal and a complex homo sapiens differentiate then in just how those electromagnetic parameters are installed and evolving in co-evolution with their respective environments (described as groupsouls or oversouls etc). The World-Soul or the soul of the universe is of course the GodDog, also co-evolving with its creation.

 

The universe was born BECAUSE the unbifurcated and sexless distinctions separated allowed and led to new ways of experiencing THE SELF (The I AM of the scriptures and the OM of the New Agers). But this is another story one can tell, as long as one is capable to do so.

 

 

Tony B.