Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01187)

Dan,
	In fairness, I feel the need to respond to your post.
	While the discussion of bodies and planes has some
merit, I suppose, as an intellectual exercise, this was not my goal.
I was trying to find why JHE thought the two models to be so
different.  Certainly the terminology is different, and I am yet to
be convinced that the there is any real structural differences.
You write:
>Jerry HE said in one of his posts that he believed Jerry S. misunderstood
>the planes/principles  as given by HPB.  I believe Eldon in previous posts
>had said something to that effect.
	Here we have one of the problems.  I am not "misunderstanding"
what JHE or Eldon says.  I am also not "misunderstanding" what HPB
has said.  But I do, it would seem, interpret what HPB said a bit differently
than JHE or Eldon.  Neither JHE nor Eldon have provided direct quotes
from HPB, because they can't--because our interpretations of those
quotes are different.  When JHE responded to me, for example, I did
not understand what the response had to so with differences between
the models.  It soon became obvious that we are interpreting HPB
differently.  I do not think that there is any disagreement between us
on CWL (whose writings are more direct and less obtuse than HPBs)
	For example, JHE pointed out that the CWL model has the
lower five planes as "atomic."  Now, as Kim has recently shown, this
is not necessarily wrong.  My understanding of Buddhism tells me that
the lower four planes, those below the Abyss, are composed of
"aggragates."  Now, an aggragate is something that is composed of
many smaller things.  Aggragates are the polar opposite of monads.
As G de P says, aggragates are "hosts of monads."  Is there any real
difference between aggragates and atoms?  Could it be possible
that "atomic" is just another word for "composed of aggragates?"
And when we look at HPB, I have no idea where JHE gets the idea
that only the lower solar plane is atomic.  I suspect that this is used
in some other context, but I am not familiar with the quote (yes, I
have read about everything that she wrote, but I don't claim to have
Alexis's total recall).  Now, as to the 5th plane, this lies between
the "lower four" and the spiritual and divine above.  It is, IMO, the
Abyss itself, and contains the "shistas" or seeds of each
manvantaric manifestation.  So, in a way, this plane too could be
called "atomic."  So, in a way, I can agree with CWL that the lower
five planes are atomic.  However, I still don't see where this
differs from HPB--who never said a word about the upper 3 planes
at all, confining herself to the lower four that contain the seven
lower globes.  And is we can agree that "aggragates" is not so
far from "atoms" then there is no real conflict.
	This is just one example.  I could go on, but I
don't want to bore everyone.  However, if you find this kind of
thing of interest, then I would suggest we discuss it one
subject at a time, so that we are not rambling all over the place.
	
	I hope that this helps.  I would hate to leave everyone
with the mistaken idea that I am some kind of dunce who can't
understand what JHE or Eldon is saying.  I also don't want to
suggest that it is JHE or Eldon who have it all wrong.  I think
that it is all a matter of interpretation; HPB's writings especially
are open to interpretation (which is exactly what she intended).

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI