Theos-Talk Archives (January 1994 Message tl00083)

Brenda

     Since you acknowledged that the extensive quotes you
uploaded from the S.D. are all references to the Astral light,
there is no need for me to discuss them, since they do not refer
to an  "astral body." However, your discussion did jog me to
try and more clearly restate my position, for your sake, and
others who also may not have captured my meaning:

     When I wrote to Arvind that "the (in H.P.B.'s terminology)
astral body has nothing to do with the emotions," I was trying to
get across the point that Blavatsky's "astral body" is another
term for "Linga Sarira," or "Model body." "Desire," in
H.P.B.'s system is associated with "Kama," not the "Linga
Sarira." Of course, all of the principles are interconnected,
therefore *every* principle has something to do with *every
other*. But in terms of basic definitions of the principles, the
"Astral Body," or "Linga Sarira" as H.P.B. defines it is:

     "...the inert vehicle or form on which the body is moulded;
the vehicle of Life. It is dissipated very shortly after the
disintegration of the body." (S.D. II:593).

     Therefore, I repeat my original statement that in terms of
the basic function of H.P.B.'s "Astral Body," it has nothing to
do with emotions. For that, you will have to look at H.P.B.'s
term; "Kama-rupa," on the same page:

     "...the principle of animal desire, which burns fiercely
during life in matter, resulting in satiety; it is inseparable
from animal existence." (S.D. II:593).

     I am sorry that the discussion between Arvind and myself
gives you "great pain." I don't know what on my part I could do
to help you. Perhaps you can avoid the pain by simply not
reading anything that I write.

     As for Leadbeater; I agree with you that he is, at least
historically, part of the Theosophical Movement. Where did I
ever write or say otherwise? What do you mean by ridicule--that
some of us found his description of the "brow snake" funny? I
admit finding the description rather silly, and I had a good
laugh out of it, but I don't take theosophical writers as
seriously as you do. That is my view.

     As I suggested some weeks ago, you might write an essay for
the bulletin board on Leadbeater's accomplishments, and why you
believe him to be such a great occultist. I'm sure that there
are many who would appreciate such an essay, and will give you an
opportunity to answer anything that you consider to be
"disrespectful ridicule."

     The next message is for Arvind. So please Brenda, don't
read any further.

Arvind

     Page 37 of TCF begins by stating that the foundation of this
book is to consider the subject of "fire" both macrocosmically
and microcosmically. This tells me that Bailey is going to run
an extensive parallel between the Solar System and humanity. Her
threefold "fires" are essentially physical, mental and Divine,
thus in conformity with H.P.B.'s three lines of evolution--a
central point in the S.D.

     p. 38. Her description of physical fire (fire by friction)
is described as "logoic kundalini," which she does not define,
but an analogy to human kundalini, would suggest that the source
of the kundalini (the "logoic") is relativly subphysical, since
the human being is more physical than the kundalini that it
produces.

     Her description of the mental fire is confusing because of
the undefined terms, but she is obviously drawing a parallel
between the mahatic (cosmic mental) and manas.

     The third, or divine fire is the "distinguishing mark of our
logos, and it is that which differentiates Him from all the other
logoi." Presumably, she is talking about Leadbeater's Solar
Logos, who is referred to as "Him." This is part of Leadbeater's
E.S. teachings, and later published in MAN WHENCE HOW AND
WHITHER, where the Solar Logos "smiled" upon the proceedings. But
I'm yet to find this personification of an abstract principle in
H.P.B.'s writings. In H.P.B.'s writings, the term Solar Logos
may be applied to that portion of the atmic rays which are active
in our Solar System. Collectively the rays are the Logos, the
"Army of the Voice." Therefore, the Solar Logos is a
collectivity and a class, in the same sense that the "Pacific
Fleet" is a collectivity and class of American soldiers on duty
in the Pacific Ocean. My point is that unlike Leadbeater's
Logoi, Blavatsky's do not exist in anthropomorphic form.

     p. 38 et cet. Regarding the seven rays, most of this
originated with Subba Row. His commentaries were published in
1895, though Subba Row, began these talks on the seven rays ten
years earlier (1885), after H.P.B. had left Adyar. These talks
were given to a half dozen people, including Leadbeater.
Leadbeater expanded upon Subba Row's ideas in the E.S. material.
Ernest Wood, Leadbeater's secretary published a book on the Seven
Rays in 1925 (same year as TCF). You might find it beneficial to
compare Blavatsky's, Leadbeater's, Subba Row and Bailey's
references to the seven rays. Ernest Wood also relates character
types to the seven rays. Bailey, by the way, was aware of Subba
Row's ESOTERIC WRITINGS, as she cites the book on p. 62 in TCF.

     Next time I will comment on the section between p. 69 & 76.

Until then
Jerry Hejka-Ekins