Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00027)

Kay:
>HPB writes that linga-sharira is related with spleen, so i think
>her linga sharira or astral body is CWL&AAB's "etheric body".
>Sinnet directly writes in "Esoteric Buddhism": "Third principle is
>astral body, or linga sharira, it's etheric double of physical body".

  I must say that I accept the concept of AAB - that the physical body
possess etheric tissue of greater importance than the gross body and
that this constitutes the etheric body. The astral body would still be the
etheric double (with double being the key word here). Such an etheric body
would explain for example the "phantom" pains of people with amputated
limbs. It would serve as the recipient of prana (through the etheric
counterpart of the spleen) - (I understand perfectly your line of reasoning
here). It would also explain the statement that the (gross) physical body
is
not considered a principle (the real principle would be the etheric body).
The linga sharira is described as the vehicle of prana, but prana would
exist on all planes and vivify all principles.
   Linga itself is a force (and the word is generally used alone when
discussing consciousness) and linga sharira is the sheath or body of this
force.
   My discussion with JHE may take the direction of a complete analysis -
the above is mere casual remarks -  (it is terribly time consuming).


>K.H.'s kama-rupa should be an astral body of CWL and most other people.
>Sinnett writes that "animal soul" is 5th principle in letter #32
>and M. doesn't critisize it, but in "Esoteric Buddhism" Sinnett
>writes: 4. Animal Soul - Kama-rupa. (Chapter II).
>Footnote below table says that this set of principles is improved
>relatively to previosly published in "Theosophist". :()
>Note that Sinnett has only one Manas (5-th principle), not divi-
>ding it to "rupa" & "arupa".

   I accept another concept (explained in detail on p. 260 ff. of "A
Treatise on Cosmic Fire") - that the enumeration of a mans principles is
dependant on his level of evolution. In other words: the various
classifications may explain various states and levels of evolution. This
would explain the differing classifications (some of them differing beyond
any correspondence).

Krishna in Bhagavad-gita doesn't
>divide manas, too, but there's only 5 principles. HPB in vol. 3
>of SD divides it to higher & lower and comes more closely to
>the CWL's system:
>     HPB               CWL
> [atman]            Atman
> Buddhi             Buddhi
> [Buddhi]-manas     Arupa-manas
> Kama-manas         Rupa-manas
> Pranic Kama        Astral    [correspondence ot these two
> Astral             Etheric    was explained above]
> Objective          Physical

  I rarely try to make the correspondence that exact. But here I would
probably conclude that CWL used the gross physical as a principle (not
as a mistake but rather as a veiled explanation) and completely left prana
out of consideration - and that the objective body of HPB would correspond
to both the etheric and physical of CWL. These differences are trifling and
could just as well be observed between the various classifications of HPB.


>From above follows that founders & mahatmas widely experimented
>with a set of principles, and this set probably wasn't "ready"
>up to the time of writing "TD", so we shouldn't dogmatize infor-
>mation on principles published in TD.

Or that the principles depend on level of evolution.

>Summarizing this, i colclude that CWL/AAB system seems to me more
>appropriate. Note that on each "odd" plane live to bodies and on
>each "even" plane lives one. It helps to overlay this system to
>5-fold (Atman, Buddhi, Manas, Kama of Bh.G.) + physical body.
>Atman should be here "2-fold", too, but because it's both "personal"
>& "impersonal", i think. And because i cannot apply logic to matters
>that are higher than manas.

   I must say that I use both the principles enumerated by HPB, TSR,
Sinnett or Besant/CWL/AAB without any sense of deeper conflict. And just as
you do, I use ancient sources to corroborate it (I love the BG). I have yet
to find an classification (in the sources I accept) that cannot be
satisfactorily explained and made to correspond with the other
classifications without making any too fantastic interpretations.
   I find it very enjoyable you - with your obvious interest in the
philosophical aspect of theosophy - have found your way to Theos-l  :-)

In friendship,

Kim