Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01125)

JHE:
>However, if someone on this board wishes to continue this discussion
>concerning differences between HPB and CWL, I would be more than happy >to
start again.

Me too, consider the glove taken, Jerry. Let us pick up where we left last
week.

>>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.

   First, I have little interest in CWL?s level of understanding of the
terminology.
The planes and their names can be supported by a large amount of material.
Your specific criticism must be a misunderstanding - surely you are talking
about gross atoms  - "and Occultism says it is atomic; therefore it is
matter." (SD vol.1 - and vice versa) Of course it may be atomic without
being composed of gross atoms. If CWL mentions gross atoms the
misunderstanding is on his part. If he is talking about permanent atoms,
param-anu then he may be correct.
   When Shankara described the buddhist enumeration of the principles of
man he divided them into skandhas and paramanus. While the skandhas are the
seven-fold build-up of the human sphere of consciousness (ranging from the
sense-apparatus to the secrets of individuality, from objective to
subjective), the permanents atoms are the force centers on each plane.
Buddhism which is a no-nonsense philosophy totally ignores gross bodies,
except when influenced by tantricism.

>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.

If a permanent atom is a center of force on a specific plane, this is the
result.

>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.

It is a very occult thought that 7 planes of activity are 3 as subjective
and passive. The same with the logos or matter - 3 aspects of one, 7
principles in
manifestation.

>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.

No. The lowest cosmic, universal, macrocosmic plane. The 3 figures on p.
658 represent a) the universal principles, b) the principles of the solar
system (and our part of it, the planet, nature or prakriti), and c) the
FORCES of man on the sub-planes like desire, prana, etc. This triple
division is described and supported by Subba Row in "Philosophy of the
Bhagavad Gita", alongside my other propositions-  see fx. p. 23 "Conceive
this manifested solar system in all its principles and in its totality to
constitute  the sthula-sharira (physical body) of the whole cosmos". For
correspondence (-:) between Sthula Sharira and Prakriti in classifications
see Subba Row : "Esoteric Writings", p. 289, 292.

>>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.

whoa, prrrrhhh  :-). She warns her readers against "so-called occult
articles on Sanskrit philosophy", and later against the tantrika systems.
This completely reverses the meaning.

>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.

>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."

Different atoms again.

>In HPB's system, the 7 human principles are limited to
>the seven prakritic subplanes of the solar physical plane (658).

No. The seven planes of Prakriti are the seven planes of the solar system.
The body of the solar system is on the physical or prakritic plane of the
Universe.

>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.

Exactly, the manifested jiva is on the mental plane, also called the egoic
plane, which is the meaning of jivic, also "the (innermost) consciousness
of the average human".

>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!

Not necessarily. The Pratyeka Buddha cannot leave the mental or egoic
plane. Why? The full Buddha has transferred his individuality and
self-consciousness to the buddhic plane to become "fully enlightened". But
the Pratyeka Buddha has still liberated himself from rebirth on the
physical and astral planes.

>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
>"principle" could not be "divine"

HPB uses the term element as a translation of the term, "bhuutaM" - the
several complaints about translating the term shows it  (see Subba Row:
Esoteric Writings, p.312) . The real occult analysis of the term is given
in B.Gita 8.3.

bhuutabhaavod.hbhavakaro visargaH karmasaMGYitaH || 3||

The fashioner of
a) bhuutam - element, past, having been -  PAST
b) bhaava -  a state of being, existence - PRESENT
c) udbhava - the arising, appearing - FUTURE
is called karmic "creation" (generation)

The 2 other statements in this verse on a) the immutable and c) the
over-soul makes it clear the Gita is discussing the famous "Law of
Periodicality" and the "boundless plane" which becomes seven planes in
manifestation or fundamental b).

The subtlety of this analysis made 5000 years ago certainly takes a little
of the Material Nature out of these elements.

>     Under CWL's system, he was able to "visit" the
>Buddhic" and "Nirvanic" planes and described them in some
>detail.

:-)  When CWL fails it is always in his assesment of his own exalted
position and abilities. But one should always remember there can be 4
possible sources for his doctrine -
a) T. Subba Row through himself
b) HPB through Annie Besant
c) hmmm....spiritual forces watching over the TS
d) his own work, study  -  imagination  or conscious fraud according
    to viewpoint.

75 percent reliable or better is not that bad.

Well Jerry, this was 2nd round of this discussion, and I must say that I
look forward to your replies.

In friendship,

Kim