Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00365)

>You say "Perhaps it would help if we changed the word 'body' to
>vehicle of consciousness'"
>
>I've suggested several times that they might be called "fields".
>I'd love to hear an answer to this suggestion from you.

Of course Jerry S. is using his own model, but unless we are
intent upon changing the definition of words she has already
established, then I suggest that we either stay with the terms as
HPB defined them, or come up with new and different terms such as
"fields." I not suggesting this to canonize HPB, but to minimize
confusion, which seems to already be rampant. As I understand
HPB, "body" denotes a vehicle of consciousness or of other, more
subtle bodies. Therefore a vehicle of consciousness could be a
"body", but may not have form. For instance Buddhi is the
vehicle of Atma, but Buddhi is without form (arupic).

The first recollection I have of the word "fields" in
theosophical context was at a class I took some thirty years ago
that was taught by Fritz Kunz. Fritz used the analogy of a
magnetic field that he said was universal, but becomes
"localized" in a magnet. Therefore the magnet would be the
"vehicle" or "body" of that field. With this analogy, I
understand Fritz's "field" to be an analogy for consciousness,
while the magnet would be an analogy for the "body" or "vehicle."

Hope this helps.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu
and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org