Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl01030)

Daniel C:< snip snip snip

Rich:<Yes, I agree. The problem may come in with taking HPB's comparison with
Kabala on P. 200 of the S.D. Vol. 1 too literally.>

No Rich, it is meant to be taken literally, or she would have so stated,
 though I will agree with you that HPB probably implies a parallel rather than
an
 equality. I don't think I have ever said that Globes=Sephirah, and am sorry to
have
given you that impression. For one thing, by changing the positions, as she
did,
she automatically changes much of the characteristics. My problem here is
terminology, not taking something literally

Rich:<This is pure speculation, however, and I freely admit it. What does not
seem
speculative is Daniel Caldwell's reading of K.H. in Mahatma Letter 25, for I
think the English is very clear.>

Very glad to hear you admit to speculation. I hear you and Daniel
keep saying how you understand it and "the English is very clear" etc etc.
but I don't hear any explanations. I asked Daniel, and I will now ask you:
Please tell me what KH means by tying Rupa-Loka and Arupa-Loka to
Kama-Loka as an after-death state. What does he mean in Letter XVI
when he mentions, in passing, "the Rupa-Loka of Deva-Chan?" Please
show me a Tibetan source (with your extensive background this should
be easy for you - this is not meant as a jibe, Rich, I am serious, you
must have a lot more books than I do) that shows a Rupa-Loka of Deva-Chan.
I am really curious about this, and both you and Daniel obviously know more
than I do (I certainly don't pretend to know everything). Hopefully, either you
or Daniel can help me on this one, but just saying that you understand it
doesn't help me much, because I don't. I am also uncertain as to what any
 of this has to do with the Globes and Planes Model. Maybe you can help
 me here too (?).

Jerry S.