Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00912)

Hi Kim,

     I've taken a break from my paper (it is very painful), and
posted a response to our terminology discussion.  Now I can go
back and suffer :-)

Hi Jerry,

:-) And I thought you would be very happy about our preliminary
history skirmishes. To me the best part begins now.
.................................
  Alongside the ES papers printed in CW vol. XII (and signed by HPB) I
would like to now and then use the notes by her students contained in "The
Inner Group Teachings of HP Blavatsky. They contain a few errors but also
some very useful notes on the same diagrams in CW.
   For example, what corresponds to diagram A in CW has 3 names (p. 36) -
Kosmic Planes, Macrocosmic, Cosmos and B - Prakritic Planes: represents the
type of all the Solar systems.

................................
JHE:
Ok Kim, to sum up what I so far understand of your nomenclature
we have:

1. For HPB's 7 principles, you want to use the diagram on page
     607, and we agreed on this to be a basic reference for her
     principles..

 2. A comparison of Kim's nomenclature to two of HPB's  which you
     approved:

Kim                     p. 607                p. 524-25

atma                    atman                  atman
auric envelope       auric envelope
buddhi                  buddhi                 buddhi
manas                  manas                 manas
lower mind            lower manas        lower manas
                                                        kama-rupa
astral                    linga sarira          linga sarira
physical                 prana                 prana


JHE
3. nomenclature for the Macrocosmic planes so far:

Kim
   You have here made the beginnings of a simple diagram which I
doubt will serve the purpose of explanation (I would like to see the CWL
diagrams first). The observant reader of this discussion will find that not
even
two explanations by HPB (as the ones on CW p. 524-5 and 658) can be made to
fit into a simple diagram of correspondences without a great deal
of explanation (see below).
    But I would like to add an observation of the "Inner group" diagrams.
The same notes will aply to the universal/kosmic/macrocosmic, the solar
systemic/prakritic and to the microcosmic/human consciousness diagrams.
    HPB uses a system of 12 principles and 7 planes (as I have stated
before) but has not given the full key to the solution. The approximate
solutions are given as 12 principles-6 planes in IGT and 7 principles-4
planes in the SD. The names of the planes here applies to the seven higher,
macrocosmic principles.

JHE
>I apologize for my part in making this more difficult than it
>might otherwise have been.  My terminology is exactly the same as
>HPB's when I write about HPB, and exactly the same as CWL when I
>write about him.  Therefore it would not be necessary to give it.
>Perhaps later we might find that our understanding of HPB's
>and/or CWL's terms differ, but that is a different issue then
>what I'm trying to deal with here.  The reason why I'm asking for
>your terms is because in your early explanations, I quickly
>picked up that your terminology is apparently based upon your
>third all inclusive system, which I guess is based upon AAB's
>terms.  I have no objections to your adopting any terminology
>that suits you, however, I need to know how these terms translate
>into HPB's and CWL's terms so that I can understand them.
>Actually, all of this preliminary questioning would not be
>necessary if you were to use only HPB's terms for HPB and CWL's
>terms for CWL.  But I do understand that your orientation is
>around your "third" system, as this is where you are most
>comfortable expressing yourself.  Therefore I'm trying to learn
>your nomenclature and how it corresponds to HPB's and CWL's

Kim
   So it is unnecessary.
   My nomenclature is primarily numerical - to faciliate understanding I
count
from above -> downwards while explaining. I have spend the major part of my
spiritual life studying the Secret Doctrine and every term I use can
be found there. To set up something called "my third system" or "Kim?s
terminology" could very well give people the wrong impression. I will
explain in detail what need be explained.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim
>In eastern thought finiteness is a manifestation and limited
>expression of something infinite. To postulate an infinitude of
>finite systems containing each other as chinese dolls is to miss
>the vital philosophical point even if the postulate can be made.
>As manifestations they cannot have any relation to the absolute
>whatever they may contain.

JHE
Would I be correct in reading in your answer that the extent of
"universal `extension'" is infinite?

Kim
Since you persists - As seven-fold it must be finite. In its triple state
it is really eternal. But on the seventh plane this finiteness concern the
life-span and extension of a solar system and others like it. The sixth is
a great unknown, the five higher completely unknown. This from the
standpoint of all esoteric works. The correlations of primeval matter is
often
speculated upon - but only in the context of the matter within our solar
system.
.....................................

JHE
>>Then for the planes of the solar system, you call them "the
>>solar physical body"?  By "7 globes of a chain" you mean both
>>the earth chain and the sun chain?

Kim
>>We must identify your sun chain before we go any futher. Please
>>give me a reference. I can think of at least three concepts
>>which may be designated as such.

JHE
>I mean the Sun's chain of globes.  Please see the above diagram.

Kim
A HPB reference, please Jerry.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Kim
>The evidence will speak for itself. It already did. Your initial
>objection which caught my eye was the following:
>"Therefore, I find two striking differences between HPB's
>principles and CWL's bodies.  The first is that the CWL's
>bodies are found on the seven solar planes while HPB's are on
>the seven sub-planes of the solar physical plane.  The second
>difference is that CWL's bodies are formed from the Elements,
>while HPB's are *aspects* of the Elements." This is in my
>opinion a confusion on somebodys behalf (you or CWL - or
>you AND CWL) of a) the "upadhis", the vehicles of consciousness,
>the principles and b) the parts (to avoid confusion with
>principles) of consciousness as manifesting on any plane of
>consciousness.

JHE
>Thank you for reposting this.  You have on several occasions
>referred to "my error" without citing it.  So until now, I did
>not know your meaning.  I think that whether my evaluations of
>CWL's system is indeed an "error" depends upon our respective
>understandings of the terms: "solar planes" and "solar physical
>plane,"  our respective understanding of CWL's system, our
>understanding of the terms "elements," "aspects," ""upadhis",
>"vehicles of consciousness," and "principles of consciousness."
>Considering our obvious differences in nomenclature, and that you
>have not seen the charts for CWL's system as yet, I suggest that
>it is too early for you to make a judgement as to the veracity of
>my statement concerning CWL's system.

Kim
  The error concern your understanding of "the system of HPB".There are no
such thing as "bodies" on the sub-planes of the solar system (even if Jerry
S. made the same error and became confused as a result a few days ago). It
is seven-fold CONSCIOUSNESSS which is on these planes alongside a vehicle
to manifest it (ONE "principle"). Comparing the SD with the ES papers will
show it clearly. It is completely inconceivable that the physical planet
and the physical body should be on different planes of existence (you can
call this Kim's axiom :-)  - both are on the seventh and lowest plane of
the solar system (the SD shows it clearly)
   I have made no observations regarding ideas of CWL (which are unknown to
me but sounds like the correct understanding).
   You also made a second error/objection against CWL regarding atomic
matter which we can return to later.
   To employ our previous findings to the CW XII p. 524-5 diagram we have
(with my comments) -

   1st part Macrocosm (universal, Kosmic) "The One in Three and Three in
One" (corresponding to Atma-buddhi-manas) behind what correspond to diagram
A

   2nd part Microcosm - inner man (on planes of solar system). Here we find
Atman and the 6 sheaths - generally referred to as principles.
Corresponding to diagram B

   3rd part Microcosm - physical man (consciousness related to the various
physical senses). Corresponding to diagram C. Consciousness can be found on
any plan - here it is portrayed in relation to the 7th, physical.

  It is the confusion between the 2nd part and the 3rd which constitutes a
very common mistake in esoteric philosophy. It is also the difference
between them which make Vedanta and buddhism seem so different.

   As a footnote: you may have been fishing for my evaluation of HPB, TSR
and CWL in your other post - since you put the word adept? next to CWL (and
this is as I recall certainly not your opinion). My assumption:

HPB (the entity sometimes in control): chela, initiate (of 3rd degree in
some systems) or 2 "grades" from full adeptship.
TSR: the same OR a lesser initiate sometimes overshadowed (not so
probable).
CWL: practical occultist, clairvoyant. May have had access to some
philosophical teachings of high quality - possibly unknown notes by Besant
from her Blavatsky Lodge days.

In friendship,

Kim