Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00406)

Jerry,

I will do my best to respond to your last two insulting and personally
aggressive posts, in which you call my beliefs "ridiculous," and degrade me,
saying "If you had been reading my postings with manas instead of kama." I
don't understand your hostility and anger at my posts, I am surprised and
hurt by it. I guess we all take our lumps in the Work?

You also sarcastically suggest that perhaps I might read HPB's "Psychic and
Noetic Action," which you know I have been posting in installments for a
week:

> BTW, HPB says in a footnote that the word noetic
> "suggests no definite meaning" (you should read her
> Psychic and Noetic Action, Rich). 

I did refer to the article "Psychic and Noetic Action," and found no footnote
which suggests what you say. Perhaps she says this elsewhere? It is curious
that if the word noetic "suggests no definite meaning" to HPB that she would
choose to title her article Psychic and NOETIC Action?

I did learn from that article that the noetic has ANALOGUES on every plane,
and is not confined to a single plane. For instance, the brain and heart are
"noetic" organs, associated with the Higher Mind, while the liver, spleen,
stomach etc. are associated with Kama-Manas, animal mind. Likewise the
astral body has "noetic" centers and also those corresponding to the
Kama-Manas. Every plane of action appears to have noetic and psychic centers
and aspects.

HPB remarks pointedly that "every Theosophist must understand when told that
there are MANASIC as well as KAMIC organs in him ..." If physical organs can
be kamic or manasic, then it is clear that Manas and Kama and ALL the
principles are present and have analogues on every plane.

So I will repeat again the statement you thought was so ridiculous,

"Manas is a principle which
pierces up and down through all the planes, and has
an analogue in every one of the seven states of
consciousness, in every grade of matter, and in every
Globe."

Regarding planes and Be-ness,

> Rich:< The souls do not have individual existence at
> the end of a manvantara, but merge into the great One
> Life, which does not exist at all, on any plane or
> grade, let alone sub-planes. It is Be-ness, behind
> all existence.>

Jerry S.:
> BTW, Rich, Beness as defined by HPB does
> exist and it does so on the first plane - that of
> divinity. What do you think the first (highest)
> cosmic plane is? Your statements are so terribly
> dualistic and your logic is so confounded that I
> can't really say more.
Well, what does HPB say about Be-ness in the S.D.? She seems to say that
Be-ness does NOT exist, on any plane, as we find on page 14 of the S.D. Vol.
1:

"This Infinite and Eternal Cause--dimly formulated in the "Unconscious" and
"Unknowable" of current European philosophy--is the rootless root of "all
that was, is, or ever shall be." It is of course devoid of all attributes
and is essentially without any relation to manifested, finite Being. It is
"Be-ness" rather than Being (in Sanskrit SAT), and is beyond all thought or
speculation."

If Be-ness is out of all relation to manifested Being, how can it form the
first plane? Perhaps this can be explained to me, for indeed I am a relative
newcomer compared to many I'm sure. If I am confused, I should be set
straight, rather than insulted, no? Insults won't help clear up my
confusion, if such it is.

Finally, I have never met Eldon, and he associates with a different "wing" of
the movement than I do, but I find his posts clear, insightful, and right on
track.

Rich