Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00106)

>Jerry HE seems to hold the
>opinion that the Besant-Leadbeater-Bailey enumeration of planes
>is some sort of novel idea and misunderstand of a teaching by
>HPB.

      Actually my criticism concerns CWL's enumeration of the
solar planes as described in ~Man Visible and Invisible,~  and
his confounding them with the "seven bodies of man,"  which is
further confounded with HPB's "seven principles of man."  The
specific criticism I mentioned to Jerry S. was CWL's description
of the five lower solar planes as being atomic in nature.  I did
not mention Alice Bailey at all.  As for the "novelty" of CWL's
enumeration of planes, I never gave it any serious thought.  I'm
more interested in how the terms are used and how they work
together then in the particular choice of one word over another.
Therefore, even if CWL had substituted HPB's terms, I believe he
still would be inconsistent with her teachings.
      Other than the above, you are quite correct; I do believe
that CWL either misunderstood HPB's teachings on the subject, or
(I think more likely) never gave much attention to her writings
and teachings in the first place.

>To the best of my knowledge it is the other way round. And I
>will proceed to explain.  The HPB source material for
>this is on pages 605-615 of CW vol. XII and at the end of SD
>3rd-5th editions.

      The above mentioned pages refer to an extended discussion on
tattwas.  I think this is a side issue from my own, but looking
at this from CWL's point of view, I do see how he might have
confounded together the solar planes, tattwas and human
principles.  Looking at it from this perspective is very
interesting, but I submit that from my understanding of HPB's
point of view, CWL is still inconsistant with her--as I will
explain.
      HPB, in the above mentioned article gives several
definitions of tattwas as:  "the substratum of the seven forces
of nature; the "forces of nature" (an occult definition); and
Prasad's definition (whom she is not necessarily endorsing) as
"the substance out of which the universe is formed.  All of these
definitions point to tattwas being different forms of prakriti,
"or atomic matter and the spirit that ensouls it" (605).  In
HPB's system, the tattwas *correspond* to the principles (612).
But remember, a correspondence is not the same as an identity.
Though the principles which make up the local universe are the
Elements (in a Platonic sense), the same word (principle) is also
used in the sense of the human principles.  The two are not the
same, though they both derive from the same universal principles
(a third use of the term).
      CWL, on the other hand, in his ~Man Visible and Invisible~
has the seven human "bodies" actually *occupying* the seven solar
planes of nature.  So to describe CWL's system:  Atma is on the
atmic ("nirvanic" in the original nomenclature) plane; Buddhi on
the buddhic plane; the causal and mental bodies are on the mental
plane; the astral body on the astral plane; the etheric and
physical bodies are on the physical plane.  On the three higher
planes; the divine (originally mahaparanirvanic), monadic
(originally paranirvanic) and atmic (originally nirvanic), CWL
has the three aspects of the Solar Logos "Himself" (plate II).
"He" ensouls the lower planes through his "Three Outpourings"
(plate III): and also ensouls the second and third elemental
kingdoms.  CWL continues: "At both these stages it is very
intimately connected with man, as it enters largely into the
composition of his various vehicles, and influences his thought
and action" (39).   Therefore we have the seven solar planes and
the seven "bodies of man" all rolled up into one (as diagramed in
plate II).  HPB, on the other hand, does not confound the solar
planes and the principles, because the principles in her system
do not occupy any but the lowest solar plane.

>In the semi-esoteric Samkhya system we find 25 tattvas or planes
>and the reason for this becomes apparent when reading HPB?s
>notes. Two tattvas were considered esoteric and instead of
>giving away the whole system thr ancients made up their systems
>of 5 or 6 principles. The names of these 25 tattvas
>are partly blinds. The solution to the riddle is that it is a
>system of 5 major planes with 5 sub-planes each. Esoterically we
>then get a system of 7 major planes with 7 sub-planes each.

      Whoa.  The reason for HPB's article is to warn her readers
away from the exoteric explanations in the Indian Systems.  HPB
writes:  "This is explained here to enable the student to read
between the lines of the so-called occult articles on Sanskrit
philosophy, by which they must not be misled" (605).  Your
reading here may be correct, but I think it is getting far afield
from my original point--unless you are showing the identity of
planes with tattwas.  If this is your point, I have only
agreement here.  But the human principles are different, as they
are the seven *aspects* of the manifestation of the universal
principles (Glossary).

>The problems arises with the 5 lower planes. HPB and the
>samkhyas gives these the names of the corresponding 5 elements:
>akasha, vayu, taijasa, apas and prithivi. The other philosophers
>give them the names of principles: atma, buddhi, manas, astral,
>physical.

      Here lies the confusion, I believe.  HPB discusses the
*correlations* of the tattwas and the human principles (610 etc),
but she does not say that they are the same in this context.  If
her discussion was in the context of the principles in nature, in
an esoteric sense, then we could talk about the identity of
tattwas and principles.  But here, she is not.  Her correlations
are with the "principles of man."  Therefore, they are just what
she calls them: correlations.  The confounding of correlations
and identities creates chaos where there was once sense, and has
been the source of confusion with students who have
indiscriminately mixed together the teachings of different
theosophical writers.  An obvious example of mixing a correlation
to an identity would be to take the correlation of the color
"red" to Mars and call it an identity.  Though there is a
correlation of "red" and "mars" in HPB's system, it does not mean
that one can substitute "red" for "Mars" in a statement and get
the same meaning.  In the same manner, we have to be very careful
about the correlations of cosmic, solar and terrestrial planes,
principles, bodies, souls and egos.  Though there are undoubtedly
correlations between them, one cannot be substituted for the
other.  We also have to be careful about the different uses of
the same word.  For instance we can't substitute an elephant's
leg for a human's--though both are called "legs."  Solar and
human principles are also different.  Therefore, if one decides
to adopt the name "Manasic plane" for a particular solar plane,
that does not mean that the human manasic principle resides on
that plane just because the word "manas" was used in both cases.
      I think the root of the confusion has to do with a blurring
of the matter and the consciousness side of nature, and CWL's re-
arranging of the principles into the solar planes.  In HPB's
system, only the physical plane of the solar planes has an atomic
nature.  In CWL's system, the lower five solar planes have an
atomic nature--thus atomic matter extends to his solar "atmic
plane."  In HPB's system, the 7 human principles are limited to
the seven prakritic subplanes of the solar physical plane (658).
In CWL's system, the consciousness of the average human extends
into the solar mental plane, while a Master's consciousness
extends to the Atmic (nirvanic) plane.  In contrast, the solar
plane that corresponds to CWL's "mental" is called the "jivic" in
HPB's system.  Where CWL's solar "mental" plane corresponds to
the normal state of consciousness for the average person in CWL's
system, it is the plane of consciousness of the Prateyka Buddha
in HPB's!

>The question is: can a case be made for this enumeration? (else
>Jerry S. will be in trouble. He will be functioning as a nightly
>magician in the element of water instead of the astral plane :-)
>.
      I think Jerry S. will remain safe because as a magician, he
can zap that darn plane and make it into anything he wants it to
be :-)

>Not only can there, but in my opinion the second enumeration is
>the ancient esoteric. I have had no time to make a detailed
>exposition of the case - but I have made a search of the
>sanskrit texts on my harddrive. These include writings by
>Shankara and Vyasa and are generally regarded higher than
>Samkhya philosophy. Here are my findings:

>None of the hundreds of hits in 74 volumes on the word tattva
>connected the term with elements in the sense of the Samkhyas.

      The "hits" and "misses" don't surprise me.  For the misses,
why would one want to link together words that already have
essentially the same meaning in the first place?  Tattwas are the
elements.  As for the "hits,"  they appear to be a very proper
combination of words to enumerate planes.
      Remember, the principles are *derived* from the elements
(see HPB's ~Theosophical Glossary.~).  However, keep in mind (as
I mentioned in my message to Jerry S.)  that HPB uses the term
element here in the Platonic sense, not in the medieval/physical
alchemical one.  Here elements are not atomic--otherwise a
"principle" could not be "divine."
      Whether or not the "second enumeration" is the "ancient
esoteric" I don't know, but it is not the one used by HPB, nor
did she use the tattwas--except in the context of the broader
discussion you cited above.

>Dozens of hits each connected words like atma and buddhi with
>the word tattva. In the Vivekachudamani by Shankara alone he
>uses the terms atma and tattva together about 10 times.

>Here are a few examples, mainly from the Mahabharata and
>Vivekachudamani:
>budhaastattvaartha  (meaning of the term buddhic plane)
>paraM tattva bhuutena (beyond the planes of the elements)
>tattva buddhyaa  (plane of buddhi)
>tattva buddhiH (buddhic plane)
>siddhaa rajjutattva (siddhas, paranormal faculties of the plane
>of desire)
>tattvamaatmanaH (the atmic plane)
 ---- the list is really long

      It appears from your list that the word "tattwa" is being
translated as "plane."  I think this is quite correct if we use
HPB's definition of a plane as an extension of space.  Of course,
this definition does not necessarily imply physicality
(Glossary).  Therefore I think the examples you give above are
quite appropriate and are consistent with HPB, but not with CWL
or any other system that gives the principles an atomic nature
and has them occupying the solar planes.  A good illustration of
the difference between HPB's and CWL's systems concerns what they
were able to do.  Under CWL's system, he was able to "visit" the
"Buddhic" and "Nirvanic" planes and described them in some
detail.  A good take off on this kind of thinking was Paul
Twitchell's description of the Eck Masters "astral traveling on
the Atmic plane."  This kind of word bending works in CWL's
system, and made it possible for him to do some really amazing
things.  But in HPB's system, these usages only create oxymorons.

>I think it speaks for itself. I rest my case (how about that
>Liesel).
>
>In friendship,
>
>Kim

And I rest mine  :-)

A very excellent post Kim.  I really had to do some careful
thinking before responding.  We go through this kind of thing
over and over again in our classes when we discuss the
principles.  Last year, I asked a member of one of our classes to
study CWL's version of the seven principles (which she wasn't
familiar), compare it to what she read of HPB's system, and
report it back to the class.  Since she had studied HPB first,
she had a terrible time trying to figure out what CWL was talking
about because he blurred together all of those fine distinctions
that she had learned about when studying HPB.
      Regarding our respective points, I think we are a bit out of
phase with each other.  Most likely it is because my original
post did not really elaborate on what I meant concerning the
differences in CWL and HPB's systems.  Therefore, I used the
above response as an opportunity to do some of that elaboration.
Concerning your points regarding the tattwas, I don't really have
an argument with what you have presented, and I tried to
communicate this between the cautions.  The center of my argument
really concerns CWL's arrangement of principles and planes as
compared to HPB's.  The identities and correlations of tattwas,
principles and elements is, I think, a secondary confusion.
      I just wish you waited until after our conference so that I
would have more time to get into this subject.

Best
Jerry