Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl01028)

Daniel C:<I would suggest that a careful reading of this whole passage would
show
that KH is referring to the after death state of Kamaloka when he uses the
term Kamaloka in both sentences. ">

Could be. But then, what does the rupa-loka and arupa-loka refer to?
Do you think that these are two other after-death states? Are you
familiar with the Mahayana Buddhist three-realm teaching of kama, rupa,
and arupa which are the external maanifestations of body, speech, and mind,
and also connected to Dharmakaya, Sambhokaya, and Nirmanakaya
as the three vehicles of a Buddha? I am not disagreeing with you, Daniel.
My real point is that they made their passages so confusing that it is
nigh impossible to really follow what they are saying. Either they meant
the paragraph the way I said it, or else they are throwing rupa and arupa
into the picture as some kind of blinds. They do seem to be sugggesting
that a deceased person can go to kama, rupa, or arupa realms - which
is against Buddhist teachings (Buddhists believe that the deceased
will enter any of six possible realms, one of which is the animal kingdom.
These 6 realms are all below the Abyss, and are all in the kama-loka,
as far as I understand it - where kama-loka is the "desire realm" which
is the name given to the four lower cosmic planes) and also against my
understanding of theosophy, which says that we must return to another
rebirth. Only Buddhas or their equivalent, as far as I know, can hope to
enter the arupa realms. Maybe you can explain this better than I can?
Maybe I need to "carefully" read it again?

Daniel C:<"The shells, the victims and suicides" are among "the several groups
of
subjective entities" who "find their attractions" in Kama-Loka.>

Agreed. But I thought that *everyone* found their karmic
attraction in the sense that we all gravitate to wherever our karma takes us.
If
we use "kama-loka" in the sense of "desire-realm" being the four lower cosmic
planes, the sentence still makes perfect sense to me, because every monad
within the four lower planes is driven/attracted by their own personal and
collective karma.

Daniel C:<You claim that "...a large part of the misunderstanding must rest with
KH
here, for making things so confusing...". but is possible that maybe the "the
mis-
understanding" is of your making, and that you have made "things so confusing"?>

Absolutely. I admit to being confused, because "kama-loka" can
mean two different things, and to put the term in the same sentence with rupa
and arupa certainly does confuse me. Actually, while we are on the subject,
I find theosophical terminology in general very confusing, and I have said
before that I think it to be one of the reasons so many students give up and go
elsewhere. Eldon seems to have a good grasp of it. But I don't have the
time or inclination to figure out what every little term meant to each writer
and so on. I have enough trouble just keeping up with HPB (who changed
her own terminology several times). As far as I know (and please correct
me on this, if I am wrong) ther term "kama-loka" as a specific purifying
after-death state was invented by either HPB or her Adepts, and is not found
in any Buddhist or Hindu literature, and the same with Deva-Chan.

Daniel:<Is there a "Kama-Loka" within Globe D's "sphere of effects"? >

I don't think so. I look at Globe D as being pretty much located
on the physical plane. Kama-Loka (the after-death state) is located
on the astral plane (per AB/CWL) and is highly charged with emotions (most
of which are being purged here). In the AB/CWL worldview (can I call it that?)

physical things are located on the physical plane, emotions are located on the
astral plane, and thoughts are located on the mental plane. I rather like this
arrangement. It tallies well with my own experiences, and the terminology
is easy to remember and to understand. Also, it dovetails nicely with the
Qabala. HPB is doubtless more technically correct, but she is difficult to
understand to the point where theosophists, even today, are still arguing
over what she taught. I also look at the Globes from a different angle. She
primarily viewed them from the perspective of the Rounds, Root-Races,
and so on. G de P as well. I look at them from the perspective of what is
called pathworking. This puts me in the uncomfortable position of seeming
to advocate psychism - which I do not. I seem to rile Eldon all the time about
this, for example. He takes me to task about leaving the physical body and
visiting the Globes all the time. But I think that the danger is overrated, and

I have learned much by doing this. I guess its all in one's viewpoint (?).

Daniel C:<I agree that there may be more than one "kama-loka" but let us
 not increase the number by seeing "misunderstanding" where there is none.>

The only misunderstanding is in my own perception. I don't
believe that I ever accused anyone else of "misunderstanding." If so, I
apologise. The GV, like the Sephiroth, is only a model, and there are many
ways of looking at it (probably all with some validity). The only "proof" to a
model
is how well it works, and how well it predicts things. The GV Model that I have

generated, based on my own understanding and my own synthesis of various
theosophical writers (so it will never appeal to the purists of any TS) works
well for
me, and thats all I can ask of it.

Daniel C:<Relevant passages from the Mahatma Letters and the Secret Doctrine
 on this subject have been collected together and published in Adam Warcup's
*Cyclic Evolution: A Theosophical View*, See pp. 6-9 and 57-62 on "The
Planet".>

I haven't seen this one. The problem here is that these "source
teachings" are very subject to interpretation (does this sounds better than
saying they are confusing?). Also, there is a little difference between
viewing the Globes in terms of Rounds and Root-Races and in terms of
pathworking - which views them in terms of individual experience in the
here-and-now rather than from a historical perspective.

Jerry S.