Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01137)

Kay:
>     Hello!

Hello  :-)

---
>  This classification doesn't explain which principle is used
>when people "fly". HPB writes that mahatmas appeared before her
>in "kama-rupa". There's no principle corresponding to kama-rupa
>in first classification.

Hmmm...she may mean "mayavi-rupa" - illusoric form. I perceive kama-rupa
as a distinct state of consciousness related to the ego - not a permanent (either "eternal" or for the duration of a lifetime) principle.

>CWL & most other people say that it's
>"astral body". But here's astral body = linga sharira. But a
>man may die when removed linga-sharira?

I am not an expert of flying. But I understand that the astral body
can function away from the body during a period of time without being
removed "for good".

>  System from "Ancient Wisdom", used by A.Besant & CWL, seems
>to me a most suitable, but what is origin of it?  It doesn't
>match with HPB's classification, but matches with system of
>Alice Bailey.

Actually, I have just a single book by AB and none by CWL. I am familiar
with the "matching" system of Bailey. I hope to make a table of correspondences later during my discussion with Jerry HE.

>Therefore I'm trying to learn
>your nomenclature and how it corresponds to HPB's and CWL's
k>So it is unnecessary.
>Kay: ?

Simply because I was using an approximate HPB nomenclature at the time.
Jerry called two of my terms "vernacular" and I gave him a HPB reference for them.

In friendship,

Kim




elt
obliged to answer these. I do not see myself as continuing the discussion
singlehanded.

>I had also hoped that by this time, we would have worked
>out a table of corresponding terms between HPB and CWL and a
>translation table of terminology for your third system (which you
>tell me is consistent with CWL's, TSR's and HPB's) so that I can
>follow what you are talking about.

What you perceive as "my third system" is simply the fact that HPB, TSR
and a great many others are completely consistent when properly understood
(there is much evidence to this claim in theosophical writings).

>But since you have thus far avoided giving me a table of corresponding
>terms which I can use to answer your objections, this discussion is really
>very one sided.

Your post did not make it Jerry. To simply fill out some blanks in a list
and let you set up such a table would merely be asking to repeat your
objections. I will make A) either a detailed explanation or B) a diagram -
when I get to see the material relating to CWL.

>Until I understand your nomenclature, our exchange is completely on
>your terms, with you being the only person who knows what you are
>saying.

Lately my nomenclature has been that of HPB with a few modernized terms
which we agreed on. I would also like to add that this whole discussion has
in my humble opinion been completely on your terms -  since you set up a
great many rules.

>.....you seem to be maneuvering this discussion into a debate over my
>understanding of HPB's system verses yours, based upon selected
>quotes from my earlier conversation with Jerry S concerning a
>comparison of HPB and CWL.....

I believe, Jerry, that you asked me to go over your post to see what you
actually said.

>  But since you never gave me a table of correspondences for your terms, I
>have no way to fairly form an opinion as to whether your concepts are
>correct or not-- they may even turn out to be the same as mine--I don't
>know.

You mean of course the correspondence table between HPB, me and CWL.
As I have said several times - to avoid doing the work three times - I
would like to do such a table - when I have anything to go by with CWL. As
I showed you in my last post many of my "vernaculars" are simply HPB terms.

>But to return to our original orientation, this discussion began as
>a comparison between HPB and CWL--not a debate between my
>understanding of HPB's system versus yours.  Therefore I propose
>that we stay with the original discussion.  As I stated before, I
>suspect that differences in our understandings of HPB will appear
>in due course anyway.

See below. I certainly feel that it is necessary to establish what
HPB taught before we can compare her to anybody.

>Under the circumstances I think it would be in everyone's best
>interest if we agree to my three suggestions below:

>1. That we abandon this new direction of debate and return to our
>original discussion.  Until we come to an agreement regarding
>terminology involving such concepts as "solar planes,"
>communication is not possible on this subject anyway.  I have
>mentioned this before.

As I see it Jerry, it is crucial to the debate. Else we could just publish
2 papers on the subject - yours and my view on the subject. I believe I
have published my understanding of such terms - a table of correspondence
can surely only be prepared when I have the terms of both sides. Sofar your
critique and the works of HPB have been my only sources. Surely with
all this establishing of mutual "assumptions" there can be nothing wrong
in establishing the respective understanding of both the system of HPB
and CWL (when I get to see something of it).

>2. Further, since I'm "against the wire" to make my school
>obligations, I suggest that we take a break and recommence this
>discussion (not a debate) at the beginning of June.

Certainly, anything that suits you.  :-)

>3. When we recommence, I will take a less passive role and present
>my observations concerning the differences in HPB and CWL (in the
>context of the present discussion).  If you do choose to make that
>table of correspondences for your terminology by that time, then it
>will be all the better for our communication.  If not, I will just
>present the ideas of each author using their own terms, and we can
>just agree to disagree as to what each author meant by them.

Actually I have been awaiting your snail-mail package. Maybe we could get
together in private on its delayal (its the second package which does not
turn up, an adress problem perchance ?).

In friendship,

Kim