Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00544)

Daniel,

Please let me assure you that unlike some others, I have studied HPB's =
Globes and Planes carefully, in great detail, and for a long time. In =
fact, I went above and beyond the Theosophical "line" and visited some =
of those places using astral travel etc as well as the dreaded M word =
(magic). I have also carefully compared her theory to those found in =
ancient Egypt, the Gnostics, and the Qabala as well as my own version of =
Enochian Magic. I find her "map" of the magical universe to be just as =
good as any other, and in some respects better.

We did, as I recall, "attempt a study" but it was clear from the start =
that everyone was functioning on a different sheet of music, as it were. =
We only agreed in a few minor details while differing on all the main =
points. Why? Interpretation.

As to "principles" there again we failed to reach any consensus view. =
Quotes from various authors and authorities did not prevail because they =
were all subject to interpretation, and all seemed to differ somewhat =
anyway. I still don't understand the view of Eldon or Jerry H-E on =
principles, simply because they were unable to put their views into =
English that I could understand (I apparently had the same problem with =
them). I think we ended by agreeing that "principles" were not "bodies" =
but exactly why not was vague. Also, "bodies" themselves was a problem. =
I have found these kind of things to be communication problems in =
magical circles as well as theosophical circles, so maybe the real =
problem is language and personal experiences rather than Theosophy =
itself. For example, when I read the various authors (HPB and her =
followers) I see little disconnection while others find a great deal. I =
have no problem with the idea of a body and principle on each cosmic =
plane, for example. But this idea drew Eldon up a proverbial tree.

No, I don't blame this confusion on HPB either, and I am sorry if I ever =
gave you the impression that I did. She did better than anyone else =
could have possibly done. But I do believe that she deliberately kept =
some ideas vague in order to allow us to reach our own conclusions.

What the Planes, Globes, and Bodies/Principles concept needs is to be =
synthesized into a working "system." I think that G de P has already =
done this from a historical perspective (i.e., via the life-waves, =
root-races, and so on). But it has never been done by anyone yet from a =
psychological perspective (or magical or occult). IOW G de P's work =
gives us a very nice historical perspective on our "roots" based on =
HPB's formulation in the SD. But what does this mean to us today? How =
can I use this information right now? By equating the Globes and the =
Sephiroth, for example, I believe that we can use HPB's formulation as a =
"map" of the magical universe--the area that lies between divinity and =
our physical plane. This would allow us to contact those entities =
residing there (against present TS doctrine, I know, but what the Hell?) =
and learn from them.

I have no problem with learning new things (at least I hope not). But =
just to provide quotes from HPB is not enough because I have already =
read, studied, and digested her material and have reached =
interpretations that "fit" with my current world view so that someone =
would have to really show me why I am wrong in order for me to change my =
interpretations (and so far no one has come close, nor have I changed =
theirs).

What you call "bloopers" is your own interpretation of their writings. =
They may be wrong, but on the other hand they may simply be ignoring an =
opposing possibility where conflict exists. When conflicting =
possibilities occur (and TS history is a minefield of these) then one =
sometimes must pick one at the expense of the other, which may not =
really be a "blooper" at all. What Paul gave me, for example, was an =
assurance that HPB met with virtually all of the great occult leaders of =
her time, a fact that I was unaware of until I read his two books. Who =
was the real Koot Humi, and so on, I don't really care about, and as I =
recall Paul admits to some speculation based on the conflicting data =
available. His guess may be as good as any other, but the fact that HPB =
was exposed to so many occultists and philosophers gives me an even =
higher regard for her.

I don't know which school she was initiated into and it probably doesn't =
matter. Virtually all schools are writing today and we now know much =
(certainly not all) of what they teach. HPB and Olcott both were =
Buddhists. Some historians claim her Masters were Tibetan (maybe only a =
few of them?). Anyway, she did know a great deal of the Mahayana =
teaching before anyone else of her day. That is clear enough from the =
Voice. Evans-Wentz, a Theosophist himself, says in one of his Tibetan =
books that his translator could tell that HPB was initiated and that her =
material agreed a great deal with Tibetan teaching. Everyone pretty much =
has accepted this, but nowdays there is enough Tibetan material =
published to see that it simply isn't so. I have an extensive Tibetan =
library (extensive for just one person, anyway) and have not yet found =
anything resembling Root Races or Rounds or Globes or Planetary Chains. =
Nor have I seen these in Hinduism, except for Lokas and Talas (which G =
de P compares nicely). This doesn't mean that it won't turn up in the =
future, but I think it is doubtful.

Jerry S.