Finally – great message… thanks for mentioning it. Checked the spam folder, and there it was. Be well my friend!

Hi William

I, like you, shy away from formal groupings and labels. Starting with Blavatsky and with Bailey continuing in the same vein, the overarching message was always that there was a divine plan, and we all had to follow it. That goes against one of the seven fundamental laws of the Universe, that of Freedom.

The mystical view is that we somehow merge into a common bliss and then just go with the flow. If that was the case, why bother with a universe at all? There obviously is a plan. Take yourself as an example. You may have a plan to go out to a restaurant. Your gut bacteria have no option but to follow you. However, when you get there and eat, their opinions on your choice of venue could matter a great deal!

If everything is planned, why was the Moon Chain aborted?

Just checking, did you get my email?

Thanks Kazim – your explanation really fleshes out the overall picture. I am comfortable with the addition of matter as a team player and not a sideline benchwarmer. It makes total sense – but from experience, I know that more questions will crop up as the journey progresses. I’ve had to reformulate my understanding many times while trying to get the real picture of the elephant’s essence; tree, snake, rope etc. It truly is an adventure! I want to mention that Alice Bailey’s work is a great trove of info, however, the platform of being a servant to The Plan is troubling for my tastes. I mention this, as when I first encountered your page, I was cautious fearing Bailey-ness might be afoot. I don’t want to disparage any spiritual school, but I know what rings right for this monad. I find your work to be direct, based on hylozoics and not colored with “save the world” drumbeating – although compassion is a good palliative for all that ails. Sorry to rant… BTW – my wife and I are chill, I mentioned a place to hang out, if you want, and if you are in the area, because a conversation with you, or whatever, would be a thrill. Nothing strange, no strings. Anyway, the offer stands as you see fit. Well, enough for now. Have a terrific day!

Hi William

Lovely to hear from you and to know that you have managed to integrate the Hylozoic perspective of Matter with those put forward by Blavatsky. Let me clarify a few points.

From a Hylozoic perspective, “matter” is not dead substance; it is living, structured, and layered—the medium through which consciousness expresses itself. In that framework, purusha is the consciousness aspect, while prakriti is the matter/nature aspect, i.e. the active, formative side of existence.

What is the core distinction? In the classical Indian dualism of Sāṃkhya, purusha is pure consciousness and prakriti is nature or matter; the Hylozoic treatment keeps the distinction but rejects the idea of inert matter, treating matter itself as alive and inherently conscious in potential or in organisation.

So, in simple terms:
Matter: the substance or vehicle of existence, alive rather than dead.
Purusha: the observing, conscious principle.
Prakriti: the evolving, formative nature that manifests worlds, bodies, and states of experience.

Let me give this a Hylozoic nuance. What makes the Hylozoic view different from a strict Sāṃkhya reading is that it does not treat matter as merely unconscious stuff. Instead, matter and consciousness are understood as inseparable aspects of reality, with matter existing in graded forms and consciousness expressed through those forms.

A practical way to think of it is to use the following shorthand:
Purusha = awareness
Prakriti = manifestation
Matter (Hylozoic) = the living fabric in which manifestation occurs


I hope that makes sense.

Thank you for your very kind offer to visit you in Sedona. I have never been to Arizona. I will write to you directly on that matter.

Update: the journey through your material continues with much joy and a continual rearrangement of old ideas. The unraveling of the fact of “matter” was initially a problem for me, but has been resolved, for now, in its logic. I don’t see a conflict with “matter,” purusha nor prakriti as it is all is part of the reality engine – independent of one’s understanding. And yet, understanding and integration are all part of the fun, fundamental to the adventure. A Big Thanks once again for your work! BTW, if you are ever are in the Sedona area, let me know – my wife and I have ample space if you need some shelter, perhaps some peace and quiet with a splash of beautiful red mountain scenery – just a thought. Cheers!

Dear William

Lovely to hear from you, and thank you for your kind words. Esoterics can be confusing even when you are in one particular tradition. I realise that most subscribers to my work are not virgins. They have been exposed to esoteric ideas before. So, it gladdens my heart when they report that the concepts put forward by Hylozoics clarify what they have been learning through other systems. Hylozics did the same for me.

I agree that there are not many who resonate with the concepts put forward by Laurency. I have always been surprised by how Theosophists and students of Bailey are so resistant to the inclusion of “matter” as a central focus of all consciousness. Laurency says we resonate with Hylozoics because we have been exposed to it before. This may well be true, but that does not leave any space for virgin exposure. I like to think that is possible as well.