Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00175)

Kim:

I'm not jumping into this time-consuming analysis just
now, but thought I'd comment with a word on two.

>Can the position be held -

>a) that our solar system (and hence our planetary chain) are
>part of the seventh and lowest part of seven universal planes
>or principles?

We can talk about the plane(s) that a planetary chain are on.
These planes are different levels within the solar system.
But the solar system itself is not *on the planes*, but rather
*comprises the planes*.

If an airplane were to have seven floors within it, and we
were passengers on that plane, we could go to higher floors,
or lower floors. We could be on the top floor or the bottom
floor. Within the definition of existence that the airplane
provides us, we have various levels of experience.

Regardless of the floor that we're on, though, the airplane
itself can go higher or lower *in its own realm of experience*.
That is, completely transparent to us as passengers, the plane
could fly to higher or lower levels of its own field of action.
That field of action is the planes provided by the greater
scheme which that plane participates in.

 From this standpoint, it's possible within the solar system
to talk about the solar or cosmic planes on which a planetary
chain resides, but not to talk about the planes on which the
solar system itself is on.

>b) that the principles of man are on various planes of
>existence within this solar system?

Each plane of existence is a full-featured realm of experience,
with laws of nature, "physical" forms, and various classes of
beings from the different kingdoms of nature.

The seven principles are not an experience of embodied
existence on seven planes. They are seven aspects or
ingredients of sentient being, including insight, thought,
feeling and desire, and sense perception. These qualities
or attributes of consciousness are necessary for one to
come into existence on any plane.

When we speak of thought being the action of a "mental body",
it is a metaphor, not a literal truth. The substance of
mind is thought, not 'physical matter or a physical body on
the mental plane'. Thought is not an attribute of matter on
this or some higher plane; it is a quality of consciousness.

>And that these seven human principles has a connection far
>stronger than a mere correspondence with the seven principles
>of the solar system?

The human principles have an inseparable connection with
the seven principles of the solar system, and with the
seven principles of any other being or scheme of existence,
regardless of its size or level. The great is reflected in
the small. The same pattern of life holds true throughout
the universe, in the big and in the small. The pattern is
universal.

The correspondence, though, is human principles to solar
principles, not human principles to solar planes of existence.
Just as we have, within ourselves, a Sutratman, a stream of
consciousness with knots or centers of sentience, including
the higher self and the human ego that we know ourselves as,
so does the planetary chain or the solar system.

When we look at planes of existence, we have a spectrum
of possible planes, but there are only certain discrete
"places" or centers or worlds or levels along this spectrum
where existence actually takes place. This corresponds to
the knots or centers of consciousness in our own constitution.
Along the spectrum of possible planes of existence, there are
certain knots or centers where worlds form. These are the
planes of our planet or solar system, and in us would be
the egos or centers of consciousness.

>c) that both the systems of HPB and CWL (and every other
>esoteric philosopher) can be explained satisfactory from
>this position?

We can talk about the law of correspondence, about the fractal
nature of life where the same patters appear throughout all
living things, of however big or small scale that we look at.
This is usually recognized and mentioned, but it is not in
this general rule that HPB and CWL might differ. The difference
would be in certain specific concepts like the distinction
between the monads or centers of consciousness and the principles
or attributes of a particular consciousness.

>This is a subjective interpretation, but the only one possible
>when the terminologies are differing.

But I don't think that we can explain all the differences
between CWL and HPB as arising out of using different
terminologies. I'd see the ideas as sufficiently different
and distinct that it would be reasonable to talk about the
Besant/Leadbeater variant of Theosophy as a system of thought
in its own right.

-- Eldon