Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00296)

JHE
>>>How do you define "universal planes"?

Kim
>>As states of being external to our solar system.

JHE
> What is the extant of these "universal planes"?

Kim:

Extent? Who knows? Did you read my recent post on extension as a property
of space, an answer to Liesel? Do you want support for this idea of
universal planes, I consider it well-known?

>Do you have a term for planes "external" to the "universal planes"?

I have never seen anywhere material on anything *external* to these. Any
decent philosopher treats only of the 6th and 7th of these planes - they
are the white circle plane in the black field. The 6th is completely
unknown. The vedantins place their Parabrahm on the first plane, the
seventh being prakritic, the 5th universal mind.

> What do you call the planes of the solar system?

   I do not call them anything. I like to use the terminology of the
author. I use numbers. In CW XII p. 658 the 3 lower (Figure B) are called
Jivic ("egoic" also mental), Astral and Objective (physical)  If I may
choose, I choose the terminology of AAB which remains the same from her
first volume to her 24th and last.

>What do you call the planes for the earth's system of globes?

   4 lower planes of the solar system also called planes of the 4 ethers
(AAB). see again CW XII p. 658 for grossest globe (ours) on 7th or
objective plane.

>What do you call the planes for the sun's system of globes?

   Our planetary chain ARE one of our sun's systems of globes (at least
affiliated with this solar system)?  Or do you mean the sacred planets?

>What do you call the planes where are to be found the human principles?

   On all planes of the solar system and hence the planes of the planetary
chain except the highest. The important principles are the relation between
monad and ego - ending with the mental plane, the 5th. These constitute the
buddhist skandhas and the correlations of atma, so to speak, in hinduism.
 They are correlation of force or spirit rather than correlation of
elements, elementals. The knowledge of these principles constitute a whole
science for itself.

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".

JHE
>      Am I correct in understanding from your above statement that
>principles and planes are essentially interchangeable terms?
>(Note the part of your statement I starred for emphases).

   No. But if you read p. 289 of Esoteric Writings you will find each of
the differentiated universals on its own plane. 1, 3 and and 7 are the
primary. It would be possible to name the planes after these principles. If
you wish to use principles as designating only 7 differentiated states of
an entity or certain types of manifestation it will be Ok.
   There is much subtlety in the fact that you want to want to agree on a
fixed terminology. This was in my opinion the real cause behind the change
you call neo-theosophy. It remains for us to form an opinion whether an
adept impressed this on the minds of various theosophical writers or
someone dreamed it up.
...........................

JHE:
>I think that a mutual understanding of the basic vocabulary is a vital
>prerequisite to any meaningful communication.  But how are you going to
>define these terms without checking them against CWL's writings in order
>to assure that you are consistent with him?  If you want to leave it up to
>me to supply CWL quotes, that is OK too.  But that leaves you to draw
>your quotes from HPB, without really knowing if they are consistent with
>CWL.

   Well, I will wait for your photocopies to arrive to elaborate on CWL
(and thank you), but since you have raised a great amount of vital
questions, I will be rather busy.
   Buy the way I certainly do not feel a need to be consistent with CWL - I
would like to show the overall system of the approximately similar
philosophies of AB, CWL, and AAB to be consistent with HPB. If it is not
prooved here I would still advocate students to take this position.

>My own experience has been that to prove even a simple and seemingly
>clear cut point to someone with another point of view almost
>always requires the submission of at least ten times the evidence
>that would have been required to convince someone who is neutral
>on the subject.

   How can somebody like us be neutral on the question of esoteric
philosophy? It is not like researching subjects where one can hold back an
opinion untill all facts are evaluated. In esoteric philosophy it is
necessary to accept the preliminary propositions for the time being. If
this is not done no progress will be done in this direction whatsoever. I
have carried definite ideas in my mind for over a decade on these subjects
and would rather undergo surgery than extract these forms from my thoughts.
   Neither of us are really neutral, but CWL is sort of neutral ground :-)

>But once I give a response and back it up with documentation, I don't want
>to get into a long debate if the object is merely to convince the other.

   I have spend tens of thousands of working hours on the works of HPB and
especially the Secret Doctrine, nothing new is likely to turn up to
surprise either of us. We can agree or disagree on our interpretation of
the documentation and then drop it to avoid a useless yes-no argument.
  The object - my object is to convince the readers here and plant the germ
of reasonable doubt in your own mind.

>Further, my experience has been that people form opinions and attitudes
>for reasons that go beyond the evidence or any intellectual
considerations.  >I've learned that it is almost always better not to
interfere with that part of
>their lives.

   Very well put. The exact reason why I rarely attack a viewpoint. That
"reason that go beyond the evidence or any intellectual considerations" is
the very force that make me trust or reject material on spiritual matters -
but it is impossible to use such reasoning both in scholarly circles and
here. And feel free to interfere with my beliefs, I am enjoying myself
thoroughly.

In friendship,

Kim