Theos-Talk Archives (June 2001 Message tt00081)

Friday, June 22, 2001

Many thanks Eldon, I am now better informed.

I suspected these were student speculations.

Too bad they could not be checked out with H P B, and had to be
issued after Her death -- unsupported and unverified.

They tend (in my opinion) to divert the mind of the student of
THEOSOPHY away from the writings of H.P.Blavatsky and the
Masters, and, AWAY from the original and very accurate
statements concerning Nature and her range of interactive and
inter-related (by KARMA) planes, faculties, qualities, etc...
whether these be related to the Universe, Kosmos, Cosmos, or our
Earth and to each human.

I find these confusing, as they do not seem to be useful and
logical developments from what we so little know and need to
assimilate and grasp, of what H.P.Blavatsky wrote. What do I
need to have, as a mere list of names, when it is the faculties
and their development that are so ESSENTIAL. I say to myself:
"Why did H.P.Blavatsky not mention these? " She is so careful to
make everything eventually clear to the student. "What kind of a
"short-cut" to wisdom are these ?"

In other words I do not find them to be a useful development --
something to assist us out from what we already know in a kind of
disorganized way. Who among us has set to work to organize the
tremendous field of information and wisdom that is inherent in
what we already have received ? Look at what H.P.Blavatsky says
in the last 3 paragraphs of Vol. 2 of The SECRET DOCTRINE on what
can be further issued if and when we show we have assimilated the
first 2 volumes. Have we set to work to alter our way of
personal life so as to practice the living implications of what
she exposes us to see and use ? Have we in any way a clearer
view of the summum bonum -- of the Cause and the Goal of SUBLIME
PERFECTION ? What are our present duties ? How do we find or
determine them ?

For example: I am content to know that there are beings who once
were "men-minds" such as we now are, and who have improved on
that (by this I mean, H.P.Blavatsky, the Masters the Buddhas, and
the Christs of the world, etc...) . I am content to receive from
H.P.Blavatsky and the Masters what They deem will be useful to me
at this stage of progress. I am content that I have to labor on
my own so as to develop spiritual discrimination and practical
purity of life based on the metaphysical principles made clear to
me. I am aware that the MONAD is an eternal pilgrim. I know
that Karma is ever-active and entirely just and fair. I realize
I have duties and responsibilities in this life that ought to be
discharged no matter what happens. -- and so on.

Are we not all in the same condition-- of course with individual
variations ? Do we not have a duty to assist those "Monads" who
have les experience than we and who aggregate around us, hoping
we will lead them to a higher plane of perception and
responsibility, leading eventually to their own individualization
and final emancipation? So, my guess is that we will always be
mid-way between the far advanced, and the newbees in the
evolutionary chain. That being so, and with that work entrusted
to us, who are we to complain?

I guess I am blowing off steam, and apologize for shattering you
good ear with my natterings..

When we have mastered The SECRET DOCTRINE then perhaps we might
be able to determine the worth of these. At the moment I do not
see that the information offered in The SECRET DOCTRINE and
elsewhere in Theos. Literature is yet assimilated and made ready
for daily use. In other words the ethico-moral PATH of
application seems to have been shoved aside in favor of rather
(to me) fruitless names of possible planes, which may or may not
have actuality, but which lend very little if anything to the
depth of understanding our present task -- the study of the
ORIGINAL TEACHINGS of theosophy.

It is as if those who originated these complex views, names and
considerations, did this to demonstrate their supposed
superiority to H P B and to the Masters presentations.

If that is true, then I find it inappropriate, and even
presumptuous -- and also that these lists lack the necessary
logical links to those original teachings -- who has so far asked
for and ascertained any of those ?

Am I wrong in this supposition?

Best wishes as always,

Dal

================================






-----Original Message-----
From: Eldon B Tucker [mailto:eldon@theosophy.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 4:59 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: ever hear of the "anupadaka plane"?

Dallas:

The "anupadaka plane" is based upon the Besant/Leadbeater
writings, later showing up in Alice Bailey's materials.

Don DeGracia lists the planes, as found in this scheme, as:

>The common names of the seven planes are:
>
>1. Physical Plane (which includes the Etheric Plane)
>2. Astral Plane
>3. Mental Plane
>4. Buddhic Plane
>5. Atmic Plane
>6. Anupadaka Plane
>7. Adi Plane

This comes from his online manual on astral projection
which is at:

http://www.commonlink.com/users/dc360/obe/text07.txt

(I found it with a web search using google.) Don and I
used to be active participants on theos-l, and had a
number of discussions on the different theosophical
schemes.

Sometimes the "mental plane" is broken up into the
"lower mental plane" and the "causal plane". The
"atmic plane" might also be called the "nirvanic plane."
George Arundale, an associate of C.W. Leadbeater,
wrote a book where he described his personal experiences
on the "nirvanic plane". I'm not sure I quite believe him.

In this scheme, these planes are places where one can
exist. Our "bodies" on these planes are considered as
being our seven principles. Our reincarnating ego is
considered the "casual body", the body/principle of ours
that we have build up on the higher mental plane.

Differences between this scheme and the one taught
by HPB and in the Mahatma Letters have been discussed
in the past on this list, but it's been a few years.

As I see it, in accord with the original metaphysics,
the seven principles are not "bodies". They are facets
of consciousness, and all are required for one to fully
exist on any plane. The planes only bear a correspondence
with the principles in that the other globes of our
planetary chain have an association with the principles,
and the globes are on different planes. Our experiences
of other planes come when we are in dreamless sleep, and
function through principles (or skandhas) we've acquired
for those other planes. Dreams are associated with our
brain-mind and tied to our principles we have for
physical "globe d" earth; in them, we exist in the
astral shadow of the earth, in a "sphere of effects",
the place where we dream away most of our after-death
states.

There's a lot to discuss about the HPB/ML
model versus later models offered in the various
theosophical groups. In order to recognize the differences
and form an opinion of them, it's necessary to read books
from the different groups. Otherwise, we're likely to
say "I've never heard of that before," and the other
might say "but that's what I've always read." Or we
might have an disagreement over terms and not realize
that someone else may be working from a different
metaphysical scheme where the terms have different meanings.

-- Eldon

At 02:40 PM 6/21/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear Mark:
>
>Where does H.P.Blavatsky speak of the "Anupadaka plane?"
>
>Anupadaka is PARENTLESS.
>
>How is this "ray" you say is "projected" sent? Who does it, How
>is it done, where does it land ?
>
>If you have some references could you share them?
>
>Dallas


---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-13148L@list.vnet.net