Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00186)

JHE
>>     A student borrowed my only copy of ~Cosmic Fire~ and I
>>just realized that he never returned it.

Kim:
>Really Jerry, 15000 volumes in your library and no "Cosmic
>Fire"!

JHE
       Yeah, that's the problem of loaning books to students when
there is only  one copy.  Now I will have to find another.  At
least it is in print.

Kim
>I think I will defend the terminology and leave any subtler
>points.

JHE
       I will be interested to learn exactly how you mean this.

Kim
>   The diagrams are:
>CF., p. 56 -  a chart from "Theosophist", december 1899. Showing
>the triple logos, tanmatras, tattvas, planes.
>
>CF., p. 94 - a chart from "Theosophist", january 1900. Also
>seven planes, triple logos and tattvas.
>
>CF., p. 1230 - a chart from "Theosophist", december 1899.
>Showing the seven Cosmic planes and defining the seventh cosmic
>as "prakritic"-  the exact claim I made in my previous post
>based on a chart by HPB.
>
>   Maybe someone could identify the author of these articles?

JHE

       The pagination of the December 1899 ~Theosophist~ runs from
pp. 129-192.  The January number commences with page 193, so the
page numbers you are suggesting are impossible.  However, for
those two months, I did find three charts that seems to fit your
descriptions.  The one showing the triple logos, tanmatras,
tattvas, planes is on page 150 (Dec. 1899).  At the head of the
chart is the word "PARABRAHM."   The Second chart  (p 155, Dec.
1899) also shows a triple logos, seven planes and tattvas.  It is
labeled: "EVOLUTION OF MATTER."   The third chart is a foldout
(page 203, Jan. 1900) and is labeled "Logos of a Solar System."
All three charts come from the same article entitled: "Study of
the Relation of Man to God" written by A. Schwarz.  Schwarz calls
the article "a resume of the fundamental teachings...compiled
from our best theosophical writers."  I've looked through the
article and find that Schwarz is Primarily dependent upon Besant,
where he draws from ~Esoteric Christianity~, ~Ancient Wisdom~,
articles from ~Theosophical Review,~ and extensive references to
indebted to CWL's ~The Christian Creed~ and with one reference to
CWL's ~The Astral Plane.~    There are two token reference to
HPB's ~The Secret Doctrine,~  Vol. 1.  One for page 31, and the
other for page 44.  There are other token references.  One to the
(which as you may know, was material Sinnett received from a
trance medium), and a mention or two of GRS Mead.
       I'm quite positive above charts are not CWL's though they
show his influence.  They are rather a syncretism of CWL's and
Besant's early writings when she was just beginning to fall under
CWL's influence.  The charts are probably original with Schwarz.
Perhaps I should mail you copies of CWL's charts--which are quite
different, yet you will find some familiar elements in them.

Kim:
>The most "apparently irreconcilable" of all is the various
>enumerations of seven principles of man or the universe.It is
>generally also the favorite intellectual exercise of
>theosophists to create such tabulations. It is a very abstruse
>subject and it would take years merely to cover all the
>material in the works of HPB. I suggest we use diagrams of both
>authors to make the subjects clearer to ourself and the readers
>of this. We can then add quotes so support the murkier points.

JHE
       I agree that tabulations are abstruse and may not in
themselves be very instructive.  However, both CWL and HPB
changed their terminology.  CWL's reason seems to be pretty
straight forward--Besant wanted the terminology "simplified"  and
told him to change it.  In HPB's case, she had to work with the
terms Sinnett had published in  ~Esoteric Buddhism,~ even though
some of them where misleading.  She eventually corrected all of
Sinnett's errors and substituted more correct terms, but it took
awhile.

Kim:
>A standstill will mean that both views can be supported. This I
>will consider a victory, since I am on the defending side of
>this argument  :-)

JHE
       For me, a victory is in the learning and deeper
understanding I achieve by reviewing the material while
considering new points of view.  Therefore my victory is assured.
Perhaps you will have one too :-)

Kim:
>>>If your view was correct we all aught to abandon all the works
>>>of not only CWL but also AB, AAB and many 20th century
>>>theosophical writers instantly! A few mistakes would be
>>>acceptable, but not a completely flawed understanding.

JHE:
>>I try not to take such a hard line view.

Kim:
>I always do, but fear not: this will not be the result of our
>discussion.

JHE
       How can you know this?


Kim:
>My point is that at least some of the ideas of CWL can be
>prooven consistent with the system of HPB. Especially the points
>you hold to be the weaknesses of his system.

JHE
       No doubt some of CWL's ideas are consistent with HPB's.  At
least I believe this to be so.  But I'm more concerned with the
compatibility of his overall system with HPB's.  This becomes a
problem.


>Kim:
>The vital points are:
>
>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?

JHE
       How do you define "universal planes"?   What do you mean by
"principles" here?  Do you mean the principles of man?  Are you
saying that the "universal planes" and the principles of man are
the same?


Kim
>b) that the principles of man are on various planes of existence
>within this solar system? And that these seven human principles
>has a connection far stronger than a mere correspondence with
>the seven principles of the solar system?

JHE
       Certainly CWL's interpretation.  I think HPB was clear that
it was otherwise in Instruction IV, but you say that you read it
differently.  I will check for supporting evidence, but I don't
believe there is much more one way or the other.


Kim
>c) that both the systems of HPB and CWL (and every other
>esoteric philosopher) can be explained satifactory from this
>position? This is a subjective interpretation, but the only one
>possible when the terminologies are differing.

JHE
       I don't follow your meaning here.  Which position?



JHE

------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------