Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00030)

<<<Jerry, I don't know about Dallas... But, in my view "principles" seems to be a meaningless word in this context.>>>

Well, the word "princple" is pretty flaky, and interpretable, I agree. I originally equated principles with bodies, but somewhere along the way learned to differentiate these two. 

<<< In actuality, what you call "principles are differentiated fields of primal energy or "substance" that are "coadunate but not consubstantial." >>>

Leon, I believe Blavatsky uses the 'coadunate but not consubstantial' business to describe the relationship between the globes on the planes, not with the principles, but I suppose I could be wrong. 

Here is my take: atma is the principle of subjectivity, and buddhi is the principle of objectivity, and your "fields of primal energy" is what holds these two together - Fohat. In the same way that Fohat cements the I-Not-I Monad together on the first plane, so it also cements atma and buddhi together.


<<< Therefore, they must be "things" -- since energy is matter, matter is energy, and cannot be considered as being separate. i.e.; If, as you say, "prakriti is primal matter," then all those so called "principles" you identify from buddhi to kama, are differentiation's of prakriti, and therefore material things in themselves.>>>

OK, but when you call them "things" then they are aggregates and mayavic, which is exactly what I have been saying.


<<<Atma, on the other hand, being a reflection of primal consciousness or perusha, is therefore, separate from the others and immaterial -- thus, not a "thing" in itself.>>>

Agreed. I place atma on the three upper planes and the other six "principles" on the upper three of the lower four planes (surely no principle is on the physical plane). 

Jerry S.

--