Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00368)

>JHE
>      Yes. My understanding too.  And according to CWL, these
>"bodies" and "planes" are made of increasingly finer atomic
>material.  By analogy, if the astral plane were made up of
>marbles, then the mental plane would be made up of sand. The next
>higher plane is made of even finer material.
	I agree with you here.

>  For HPB, bodies are independent entities that
>come into existance either at the death of the physical body, or
>through an extraordinary act of will.
	This is certainly true for the kama-rupa, but not so
for all bodies--the mayavi-rupa being used during life by those
who know how.

>  "Mental body" would
>also be an incorrect equivalent of "manas," because the they do
>not have independent existences as entities.
	You have lost me here.  No bodies, however we
want to define them, have "independent existences."  I don't
think that anyone taught that.  Manas simply means mind.
We don't normally think of our mind as having or being a "body"
as such, but that is because we all tend to equate consciousness
with mind.  When consciousness is seen as something
other than mind, then mind can be considered a "body" or
vehicle for it when it focuses on the third cosmic plane.
	Now, all of this stuff is flakey.  G de P, for example,
on pages 442-443 describes the mayavi-rupa (one of our
bodies acknowleged by HPB) as "the body of thought
and feeling" which makes it a combination of astral
and mental.  Many occultists and magicians (ok, Alexis,
and Shamans) experience only a single Body of Light.
These are all models or terminology that we give to our
experiences, and clearly demonstrate the subjectivity
of such experiences.

>  Further, HPB's
>bodies each have their own cycle of existance.  They never exist
>beyond a single cycle of incarnation and disincarnation (with the
>exception of the Causal Body, which exists for a manvantara).
	Agreed, but where does this differ from anything CWL
taught?

>For HPB, a principle is not a state of consciousness, but is an
>expression of one of the seven basic differentiations of the
>Elements or original essences which make up all things.
	The elements are Earth, Water, Air, and Fire (and
some would include Spirit).  Are you saying that Air of Water,
for example, is a principle?  One of the so-called principles
is manas or mind.  Which element is mind?  Another is
kama or desire.  Which element is desire?  Your generalities
are hard to follow.  I have a very hard time trying to envision
a principle as an element or differentiation thereof.  Some
examples would help.

>.  The first is that the CWL's
>bodies are found on the seven solar planes while HPB's are on the
>seven sub-planes of the solar physical plane.  The second
>difference is that CWL's bodies are formed from the Elements,
>while HPB's are *aspects* of the Elements.
	Again, I don't think that HPB limits her principles
to the physical plane only.  And I haven't a clue as to what
"aspects of the Elements" would be.  If you know, please
tell me.

> For "vehicle" HPB also uses the word "Upadhi" as a
>synonym.  A vehicle or upadhi is that through which a force acts.
>A vehicle is not necessarily a principle, but works within a
>principle.  That is why HPB says that the physical body is not
>really a principle.
	Terminology is troublesome.  On page 283 of Fountain
Source of Occultism, for example, G de P uses "Upadhi" to mean
"scheme."  Anyway, we don't want something through which a
"force" acts, but rather something through which consciousness
acts.  I agree that "body" is not the same as "principle."  I don't
think that either HPB or CWL thought it was, either.

> Therefore, a principle is really the
>vehicle of the principle next superior to it.  For instance,
>Buddhi is the vehicle of Atma; Manas is the vehicle of Buddhi
>etc.
	This is how I understand it. But you seem to be
acknowledging a confounding of principles and bodies here.

> The causal body, according to HPB, is a combination of
>Atma, Buddhi and manas, and normally does not come into existence
>until after the death of the physical body.
	I disagree with your "does not come into existence."  I prefer
"is not used."  We can, in fact, function in the Causal Body during life.
Furthermore, while incarnate, all of our bodies must include atma-buddhi-
manas.

>To call a "monad" a "body" is something that I have never seen
>HPB do.  The causal body, according to HPB, is a combination of
>Atma, Buddhi and manas, and normally does not come into existence
>until after the death of the physical body.  As I mentioned, she
>also calls it "the human monad."  So how CWL construes this to be
>a "body" that comes from the tattwas is a mystery to me.  Which
>tattwa makes up the Causal body in CWL's system?  Do you know?
	Monad was a very poor term to use in the first place.  It
mean something that is indivisible, but HPB and others broke it up
anyway.  The theosophical monad has both a subjective and an
objective counterpart which are held together by Fohat (at least this
is my understanding of HPB's descriptions).  "Body" refers to its
objective counterpart.  "Principle" refers to its subjective counterpart.
Technically 'monad'  is not a body nor is it a consciousness center,
but rather both.
	As to which Tattva, I can't be certain because the East and
West differ. In the West it goes Earth, Water, Air, and then Fire (i.e., Fire
relates to the causal plane and body).  In the East it goes Earth, Water,
Fire, and Air (i.e., Air relates to the causal plane and body).  I
don't know which system CWL used.  Probably the Eastern.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

Personal comments:  This stuff can get so technical that the
details easily become nit-picking exercises.  While this is
fine for an intellectual pursuit, it scares off a log of good new
members, and has little value for those who follow the
path of direct experience

If nothing else, I think its fair to say that the CWL/AB model
is a whole lot easier to understand and to describe.  HPB,
as Jerry HE has pointed out in previous postings, changed
her own model as she went along, making her obscure
model even more difficult.

As an example of the needless difficulty, Jerry HE first says:
> Further, HPB's
>bodies each have their own cycle of existance.  They never exist
>beyond a single cycle of incarnation and disincarnation (with the
>exception of the Causal Body, which exists for a manvantara).
          and then later in the same post says:
>5. Causal body: Also called the "karmic body."  This is the body
>that experiences devachan between incarnations.  CWL also has a
>causal body that also experiences devachan.  The difference is
>that HPB's causal body does not exist until after the death of
>the physical body.  CWL's causal body exists during the lifetime
>of the person as well as afterwards.
My question, after comparing these two pargraphs, is how can
the Causal Body "exist for a manvantara" while at the same time
it "does not exist until after the death of the physical body"???

Just a little mental rambling on my part.