Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00234)

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

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

The basic framework, principles, planes - their order, enumeration and
relation without for example going into a discussion of the after-death
experiences of the kama-rupa - the subtler points were subjects like
analyzing the seven skandhas, etc.
I am merely concerned about your time.

 JHE
>   Perhaps I should mail you copies of CWL's charts--which are quite
>different, yet you will find some familiar elements in them.

Kim:
Please do so. It will save me a journey to Copenhagen. I will then post my
evaluation of them as consistent or not with the system of HPB. Or better -
I will prepare a table of correspondence between the designations.
.......................
Kim:
>>I always do, but fear not: this will not be the result of our
>>discussion.

JHE
>How can you know this?

Kim:
I have a very strong case with the material from your initial objections
and the ES papers of HPB. You can alway bring more objections up, but
please let us go through the initial ones in detail.

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
When we started the discussion I was not aware you intended to differ
between the system of AB and CWL. A few photocopies will be appreciated -
or a brief description of the overall system.

JHE
>  How do you define "universal planes"?

Kim
As states of being external to our solar system.

JHE
>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
No, but "principles" is a term which may be applied to various
differentiations. The seven elements are the seven principles of the One
element just as the seven planes or states of being may be called the seven
principles of being. I often assume manifestations to develop from a unity
into 3 primary "aspects" and 7 secondary "principles".

 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:
  I suggest we start interpretating the statements by HPB relating to our
subject.

 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?

(sorry, this is something like a game of chess to me)
The idea of the planes of our solar system as being the lowest part of
seven universal planes. This is clearly described by Subba Row and apparent
from the ES papers of HPB. In lack of clear, direct information we will
have to make an initial working hypothesis. If both the explanations of HPB
and CWL will fit our hypothesis - then our hypothesis will have become a
possible solution.

In friendship,

Kim