I just have time for a few comments tonight. I hope to answer John C's post tomorrow on the principle of overshadowing.
Concerning the ongoing dialog between Apollonius and Jesus, let me just say this.
The question is not which one do we accept as a historical character. I believe they both are. Even so, arguments can be made for or against the reality of either one of them.
If Apollonius is real, it on no way diminishes the Bible account of Jesus and if the Bible is literally true, it does not diminish Apollonius.
As seekers of truth our duty is to find as much truth as we can about both of them.
When we reach a point where there are not enough facts to guide us, then let us look art principles which never fail.
Jesus said this: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." John 14:12
In the Aquarian gospel he says: "What I have done all men can do, and what I am all men shall be." Chapter 178:46
The principle is that all of us are reflections of God and are evolving to become like Christ.
It should be no wonder to us that those who take upon then the name of Jesus Christ (One who seeks to lift up his fellow man - see archives) will become great teachers as well as workers of miracles.
It is interesting that since the birth of the Common Era there are three mysterious persons who are seen as so much larger than life that orthodox historians question their reality.
The first is Jesus. The second is Apollonius. And the third is King Arthur
It's interesting how trinities always seem to come into play as we investigate the mysteries.
I believe that all three of these characters are real entities. Some things about them have been distorted, but all three deserved to be seen as larger than life.
As far as Vulcan goes, Larry is justified in being skeptical of its physical reality. It would have to be so small to avoid detection that it may not even be classified as a planet by scientists, if discovered.
If DK is correct that Vulcan is within the orbit of Mercury then there are two possibilities.
(1) It was physical but in recent history its globe moved to a higher vibration (from globe 4 to globe 5). This would make it invisible to us now, but would have been visible to the ancients.
(2) DK said that Vulcan and the light of the sun are one. This could indicate that Vulcan is a globe inside the sun itself, representing the First Ray aspect. Some of the ancients taught that there were globes or spheres within the Sun. Forget not that it is a fact a million earths could fit within the sun. This may seem fanciful, but never forget the words of Shakespeare.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. --Hamlet, I:5
Then, as I said, it is possible that DK made a mistake. If he did, he was still attempting to follow a correct principle. That is, there must be seven sacred planets which represent the seven rays in our solar system. If there is no Vulcan then another planet would represent this ray as one of the "seven spirits before the throne."
As far as Leadbeater being a source of knowledge of Vulcan, Alice A. Bailey (not DK) did not trust his writings that much. She said:
"Books were being published at Adyar by Mr. Leadbeater that were psychic in their implications and impossible of verification, carrying a strong note of astralism. One of his major works, Man: Whence, How and Whither, was a book that proved to me the basic untrustworthiness of what he wrote. It is a book that outlines the future and the work of the Hierarchy of the future, and the curious and arresting thing to me was that the majority of the people slated to hold high office in the Hierarchy and in the future coming civilisation were all Mr. Leadbeater's personal friends. I knew some of these people-worthy, kind, and mediocre, none of them intellectual giants and most of them completely unimportant." Autobiography of Alice A. Bailey, Page 171
DK says he will teach again starting in 2025. Perhaps some of us will live to ask him to explain himself. My guess is that the answer will be very interesting and enlightening.
My socks DO match. They're the same thickness.
Copyright 2003 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved