Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01091)

First, let me say that the discussion on planes and
bodies between Jerry HE and myself was based soley
on Jerry's statement that the models of CWL/AB and HPB
 were different, together with my desire to demonstrate
the problem with theosophical terminology.
	In our discussions, it became quite clear to
me that Jerry was finding differences in words rather than
in ideas.  I still am unable to see much real difference in
the two models.  What is the difference, after all, between
bodies and principles?  Jerry has yet to say.  And the
biggest problem is probably semantics and the fact that
we are on a listserve.  It is very frustrating to try to get ideas
across this way.  I personally thank Jerry for trying.
Let me give just one short example of my
frustration:

>JHE
>>  For HPB, bodies are independent entities that
>>come into existence either at the death of the physical body,
>>or through an extraordinary act of will.
>
>JS
>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.
>
>JS
>You have lost me here.  No bodies, however we
>want to define them, have "independent existences."
>
>JHE
>      You lost me too.  You already admitted in your first comment
>above that the kama rupa is an independent entity that comes into
>[independent] existence after the death of the physical body.

Here is a typical problem in misunderstanding.  The fault is
entirely my own, but that fact just adds to my frustration. Now, I
will stick by my statement that bodies cannot be independent.
They only exist with consciousness, and when consciousness
leaves, they change into a corpse, which is technically no longer
a body.  When I agreed with JHE about the kama-rupa, I meant
only about it coming into existence after death (it really is our
astral body all along, but the name changes with the
function, so "coming into existence" is true in a sense) and
not the independent existence part.  But it came across like
I was agreeing with both.  I was not, and thus the misunderstanding.
Another example:

>JHE
>      For HPB, you are right--she didn't teach that about manas.

This implies that HPB taught that manas has no vehicle, basis,
or body to it.  She actually taught no such thing.  She simply
never said there was.  JHE is apparently taking omission
for a postive teaching (?)

One more for the road:
>JHE
>      A vehicle (as I think I explained earlier), according to
>HPB, is not necessarily a body.   She makes a distinction between
>a vehicle (vahan) and a body (upadhi).

	The distinction between vahan and uphadi is minute,
and in this case is, IMO, nit-picking.  It so happens that G de P
*does* call a body a vehicle as follows:

"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."  (FOUNTAIN-SOURCE OF OCCULTISM p 637)

	Now, I happen to agree with Eldon that G de P
is an excellent spokesman for HPBs teachings.  The above
quote states a body for each plane, which is exactly what
the CWL/AB model also says.  HPB did not say this, but she
never said it was not true, she simply omitted  the idea.  HPB
mentions, I think, four bodies.  JHE nicely listed these in
a posting.  I don't believe for a minute that HPB believed there
was only four bodies.  Everything else in her model is seven.
She simply never mentions the other three--but G de P says
we have a body/vehicle for each plane, and thus we have seven
bodies, one on each plane.

Anyway, I have only read a few books by CWL (I do have a
copy of Man Visible & Invisible)  or AB, and am certainly not
as knowledgable as Jerry HE is.  But I have still seen very little
real differences in the two models based on anything that JHE
has so far written.

My real point to all of this was to demonstrate the
terminology problem.  It exists, and it is the real reason
that so many differences seem to exist between the
early theosophical teachings.

Rich:
> JHE was making extremely good sense, and I
>couldn't wait to see what you were going to come up with next.
	Had you on pins & needles, did I?

Rich:
>Your latest, Jerry S., makes me think that you really
>found JHE convincing and didn't know what to say back.
	Every time I say something back, it comes
around again.  It seems to never really end.  But, Rich,
Jerry and I were not debating.  It was not a contest.  I
am convinced that there are no real big differences in
the two models now more than ever.
Please tell me where you thought Jerry was so convincing,
and then perhaps I can discuss that particular point, rather
than trying to cover all bases at once, and getting nowhere.

Rich:
>For my part, I think JHE has demonstrated CONCLUSIVELY
> that CWL was really doing something completely different
>from HPB.
	Rich, I am very happy for you.  Have you experienced
the cosmic planes?  Have you seen them?  Have you noted
from observation the differences in subplanes and in inhabitants?
Alexis has.  JRC has.  Chuck has.  Until you do so, I rejoice in
your intellectual self-gratification.

Rich:
>The fact that you can't
>understand what JHE is saying seems to prove this point,
>and suggests that CWL couldn't understand it either.  Thus, he
>made up his own system.
	Rich, I am only a month or two from my Ph.D.  I don't
think my problem is my inability to understand.  My problem
is JHE's inability to convince me of any real differences.  The
differences that he apparently thinks are so vast, seem to be
semantics and omissions to me.  However, I am still willing
to listen.  Maybe you and JHE can explain G de P's quote
given above in a different context than I gave it?

COMMENT:  I would like to make something clear at
this point.  I have said this before, and probably will
again.  The CWL/AB model and the HPB model are
both just models.  Neither will appeal to everyone,
because neither is perfect.  Alan prefers the Qabalistic
Tree of Life model.  I have always suggested that
we use the one that gives us the best results.  But this
advise doesn't apply to those who do not practice or
use such models other than as intellectual exercises.
Anyway, if there are differences in the two models, this
does not, in itself, negate the one at the expense of
the other.  HPB's model does not negate the effectiveness
of the Tree of Life, for example.  As I have said before,
I rather like the Enochian model, simply because it works
for me.  So Rich's snide comment that CWL "made up"
his model is immaterial.  If he did, he was a genius
that he could do so.  But I don't think he made it up, but
rather crafted it from HPB's to fit his own experiences.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI