Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00958)

JHE
>>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 :-)

Kim
>Hi Jerry,
>
>:-) And I thought you would be very happy about our preliminary
>history skirmishes. To me the best part begins now.

JHE
I believe you are mis-reading me here.  It is the paper I'm writing
for a class that is painful and brings me suffering--not the
discussion.  This paper is very difficult to write and the subject
matter uninteresting, therefore I find it an unpleasant experience
to write it.

Regarding the "history skirmishes,"  as I tried to make clear, I
was responding to your comments on this issue.  The only concern
that I had, and tried to get across on several occasions, is that
in terms of a comparison of HPB and CWL, TSR is irrelevant.  Though
I tried to accommodate you by answering the issues you raised, I
never considered it relevant to the discussion.  Obviously our
opinions concerning TSR differ (I guessed that long before the
subject came up), but in terms of our discussion, I submit that our
differences of opinion in this area are irrelevant.  On the other
hand, our side discussion did turn out to be very instructive to me
concerning how you handle information in light of your assumptions.
But I will discuss this on the "assumption" portion of our
discussion.  By the way, will you be answering my last
(assumptions) post, so that I can do the summary as I had
suggested?

Kim
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
Actually, I've always assumed that in a discussion of HPB and CWL,
all writings of HPB and CWL would be open to use.  This would
include ~The Inner Group Teachings.~  However, it appears from your
comment above, that you are using the 1st edition (1985) of this
work--(otherwise your page reference makes no sense)--I would
recommend that you take a look at the second edition which includes
the "variant readings."   As for "errors" I would be very reluctant
to declare one reading in this edition to be in "error" and another
"correct" per se.
................................................

Kim
>   So it is unnecessary.
>   My nomenclature is primarily numerical - to facilitate
>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.

JHE
So far, your nomenclature has been primarily a vernacular, and not
necessarily those used in the ~SD~  (e.g. your use of the terms:
"universal planes"; "solar physical body" etc.) If these terms were
the standard ones in the ~SD~, then I wouldn't need to ask for your
nomenclature.  Since you have begun to spell out your terminology,
I would prefer that we continue this process rather than changing
over to a "numerical" system.  A numerical system sounds great on
the surface and works well as long as everyone understands the
referent.  For instance I can cite the third plane from above, but
if you don't know which set of planes I'm referring to,
communication fails.  In the long run, it has been my experience
that when people begin to communicate numerically, the
communication gets confused even more quickly and it takes longer
before anyone realizes it.

I had hoped that we could get the nomenclature straight before
engaging into a discussion on the principles, so that we would not
have to get into long side discussions as to the meaning of terms.
I've been through this before.  On the other hand, if you are
willing to use HPB's terms when discussing HPB and CWL's terms when
discussing CWL, then I think that would be the best solution.

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
And what is the "extension" of 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 further. 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.

JHE
SD I, p 200 diagrams the planes for the earth's chain of globes.
The sun we see will be on that fourth plane (the same plane as our
globe D earth, that's why we see it) and the six other globes will
be on the three planes above it.  What do you call those four
planes?

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).

JHE
I'm afraid that you are reading my sentence out of context to the
previous sentence, as well as out of context to my original
conversation with Jerry S.  Therefore you are mis-reading it.  I
believe that my preceding sentence makes it quite clear that my
point concerns the comparing of HPB's principles to CWL's bodies
viz: "Therefore, I find two striking differences between HPB's
principles and CWL's bodies."   However, the following sentence
would have been clearer if I had been redundant and repeated the
word "principle" next to "HPB", so your mis-reading is somewhat
understandable.  But "Bodies" in this second sentence is next to
CWL, thus it refers to him, *not* HPB.  Therefore, If you take my
second sentence in context with the preceding sentence (and not
assume that I'm a complete moron :-)), It should be quite clear
that my referent to HPB is "principles" (mentioned in the preceding
sentence) and my referent to CWL is "bodies" (mentioned in both
sentences).  So please feel free to insert the word "principles"
next to "HPB" in the second sentence for clarity (and redundancy).
If this is still confusing, then I suggest that you take the
trouble to review my original discussion with Jerry S. in order to
get the complete context of my point.  There, you will find that I
took great pains to demonstrate to Jerry that CWL's "bodies" are
not necessarily the same as HPB's bodies, and HPB's "bodies" are
certainly not the same as her principles (as Jerry had at first
insisted).  Therefore, in light of all of the ground work I laid
out for Jerry, my conclusion *had* to concern HPB's principles
compared to CWL's bodies, otherwise it would not have any relevance
to anything discussed earlier.  Taking into consideration all of
the trouble I went through with Jerry to differentiate HPB's
principles from her bodies, and HPB's bodies from CWL's bodies, I
think you will have to agree that your interpretation of my
statement is really quite impossible.

Kim
>It is seven-fold CONSCIOUSNESS which is on these planes alongside
>a vehicle to manifest it (ONE "principle").

JHE
Exactly.  And that "one principle" which manifests upon those seven
planes are called the seven principles of the human constitution.

Kim
>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 :-)

JHE
Did I ever suggest otherwise?  Where?

Kim
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).

JHE
Nope.  I'm not much into fishing.  If I had thought it a relevant
question, I would have asked you directly.  Off hand, I don't
recall the statement you have in mind, and would have to see it
again to know for sure what I meant.   But CWL believed himself to
be an "adept."  Therefore, it is most likely that I was expressing
CWL's own opinion of his occult status, not necessarily yours or
mine.

Best
Jerry HE

------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------