Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00445)

Jerry S:

>>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.

>Eldon, you have said this many times over
>the years.  So far, you have never reconciled your views
>to HPB's comment that "Each principle is on a different
>plane." (Inner Group Teachings p 19).  Is HPB wrong?

I don't have the book before me, but will refer to it
some evening at home. (I often write at work before I
get started in the morning, or at lunchtime, using my
laptop, and have only whatever book I may have stuck
in my briefcase to refer to.)

The terms like "ego" or "Monad" are used in more than
one manner, and perhaps here plane is used in a slightly
different sense than "plane of existence."

The most common usage of "plane", as I've found it, is
to refer to a world or realm where we can exist, including
senses, a form or body, the ability to think and feel, etc.
We have all these elements or principles of consciousness
here on the physical plane, on Globe D, and anywhere else
where we can exist as fully sentient beings.

We can also use "plane" as referring to a field of
action for a particular consciousness. Our mind's field
of action, for instance, ranges over what we know and
are capable of understanding. The mind, made of mind-stuff,
can be called existing on a thought-plane -- but again,
this is a mind and its thoughts, not a body of matter
on a world like earth.

>>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.

>Eldon, please tell me where you get this stuff.  I
>thought HPB says that life is everywhere.

The same place you say your stuff comes from, except that
you support a hybrid CWL/GDP/HPB model, and mine is GDP/HPB.

Life is everywhere, in every possible place that it can
exist. Our earth planetary chain is only one such place.
The chain is composed of seven (or twelve) globes on
different planes. This is a discrete number of actual
"places" where we can exist, where the objective drama
of life happens. About each such globe spheres of effects,
where subjective states like devachan happen.

>G de P (whom you have studied a lot more than I have)
>says that every single geometric point in space is a
>living consciousness-center or Monad.

True, but there are only seven (or twelve) such points
that form the basis for the globes of our planetary
chain, the "places" of existence for denizens of earth.
There are likely numberless other schemes of existence
that interpenetrate the world about us, but we don't
visit those places. If we were to leave the earth,
it would be on the outer rounds, but that's another
story ...

>Why do you persist in saying that life/existence
>must be confined to certain regions?

There is nothing that "confines" it. Rather big lives
come into being and play host to countless little
lives. A world is born and then it can be inhabited.
We are children of the world that we are born into.

>Can you give me a quote?

About the globes of the planetary chain being the
places were we exist on that planet? Or about the
distinction between the principles or ingredients of
consciousness and the egos/souls or centers of
consciousness that we actually form in order to
have sentience on a particular world (that resides
on a particular plane)? When I get time, I'll look
for a quote or two, unless Jerry Hejka-Ekins or
Rich Taylor beats me to it, and comes up with
something good.

-- Eldon