Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00007)

Eldon:<The term "area" is misleading, thought, since it implies a place, and we
are not in existence as we would think of it, but are in a subjective state
of consciousness, and not in objective interaction with other beings.>

This is one of those areas in which Eldon and I seem to always part
company. Anyway, I want to express an alternate view here. I do not
believe that *any* subjective state of consciousness is possible without
a corresponding objective body and objective world. G de P writes:

"every cosmic plane or world as well as every planet provides its own
suitable vehicles for the self-expression of the hosts of entitative
monads journeying upwards or downwards along the circulations of
the cosmos; and consequently no such vehicle or body can leave the
sphere or planet to which it belongs." (FS of O, p 637)

This quote can be taken to mean that we have a suitable body on
every cosmic plane. Thus we have a physical body on the physical plane,
and an astral body on the astral plane, and so on. In kamaloka, we are
in our astral body on the astral plane. In devachan we are in our mental
body on the mental plane. I agree that kamaloka and devachan are not on
any of the globes, but rather are "spheres of effects" of Globe D.

 Only pure consciousness in the sense of 'cit' needs no
objective world, because it is not really subjective, but rather is
nondualistic.
But whenever you divide subjective consciousness, then you also have to
have a corresponding objective world, and this means a suitable body with
senses. We can't just go off somewhere into a "subjective state" without a
corresponding objective "place." In medical science or psychology, yes.
In theosophy, no.

Jerry S.