Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00448)

JHE
>No, I don't need support for the ideal of universal planes nor do
>I question the philosophical propositions concerning extension.
>As I explained earlier, I'm just trying to get a feel for how you
>understand the terms you use.  But for clarity, I will rephrase
>my question:  If the "universal planes" are "states external to
>our solar system", then what are they internal to?  e.g.: Our
>galaxy?;  Our family of galaxies?; the entire universe?

   It would be useless to guess as to the nature of
universal consciousness.

Kim
>> 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.

JHE
>Which chart are you using here?

 Beginning of Proem and the Subba Row/Schwarz diagrams

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

Kim
>>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.

JHE:
>Sorry. My question was unintentionally ambiguous.  I was really
>asking for an overall term for the planes--like "solar planes."
>I didn't mean to ask you to enumerate them.  But I'm glad for
>this answer too.

Kim:
:-) I am trying to give you something to work on. Planes would be fine for
normal use - since their sub-planes are of minor importance and the
universal planes is rarely under consideration. See below for detailed
description.

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

Kim
>>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.

- an error here. The 4 lower should be called 4th etheric, gaseous, liquid
and dense.

JHE
>Again thanks for this answer.  But again I was looking for an
>overall term.

This would only confuse the matter as they are also planes of the solar
system.

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

Kim
>>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?

 JHE
>No, I don't mean the sacred planets. I was asking for the overall
>term for the planes of the sun's system of globes, ie the sun's
>globes A - E.

Your question was extremely confusing. You mean by the the sun's system of
globes the visible, physical globes (as I understand it). They would
generally be globe D of the various chains - all on the seventh plane.

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

Kim
>>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
>Then you are saying that the human "astral body" is on the solar
>"astral plane" and the "mental body" is on the solar mental
>plane?

Kim
Generally yes. But a mental body is a very simplified concept except if
used for the causal body, karana sarira

JHE
>Please enumerate for me the terms you use for the seven
>principles of man.

   For our purpose the one on p. 607 of CW XII will do, supported by the
one between  p. 524-5. The 4 eternal principles are here atma, buddhi,
manas and the auric envelope, together inner man or monad-ego relation -
and the 3 outer aspects, lower mind, astral and physical (prana as the l
ife-force of the etheric web). In short 7 principles on 6 planes (2 on the
dual mental plane). It is the best and most occult enumeration by HPB in my
opinion.

 To recapitulate if we are to concentrate on HPB - I would like to use:

   For the 7 principles - the diagram on p. 607
   For the universal or macrocosmic planes Figure A of p. 658. The names
relates only to forces manifesting within the solar system and no attempt
is made to designate them on their own plane.
   For the solar physical body or prakritic planes Figure B of p. 658.
These are the planes of the solar system. On the 4 lower we have the 7
globes of a chain.
   For the sub-planes of these planes of consciousness see diagram C. They
are also the seven parts of consciousness as manifesting on either plane.
Must not be confused with seven principles.

For explanation of AAB see Cosmic Fire p. 116-7 (for want of a diagram by
CWL)
   On p. 116 is explained the position of seven planes of solar system as
sub-planes of cosmic physical. On p. 817 the the planes of the solar system
is shown in the diagram "Cosmic Physical Plane"
   In the diagram is shown the major principles and their correlations on
the planes. They correspond to Auric body and atma-buddha-manas in CW p.
607 tabulation. Astral and physical bodies are ignored in the diagrams but
treated of elsewhere

JHE
>Since we are not comparing Subba Row to HPB, I don't find your
>illustration very helpful.  Can you find something in HPB or CWL
>to illustrate your point?

See above

JHE:
>importantly, I think that what your wish to advocate this overall
>system goes far beyond the scope of our discussion--viz the
>compatibility of HPB and CWL.  I suggest that we begin by
>exploring the compatibility between HPB and CWL.

   With regard to planes and principles I hope. As I will not ask you to
accept this notion of a common esoteric system it will have no influence on
our discussion. I can retain it without any effect whatsoever as it
is not forwarded as a proof.

JHE
>HPB only asks for three preliminary propositions.  For me, no
>others are necessary.

  I am talking of these but also of the axiomatic style of the SD, ML etc.-
see beginning of ML XI for more propositions. In fact a whole range of
assumptions are needed few of which are prooven.

>As for CWL, I have opinions based upon a lot of historical research.  So
in >this sense, he is not neutral ground for me either.

   I am sure you will be as neutral and objective as possible.

In friendship,

Kim