Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00407)

I read a book some time ago called TALK DOES NOT COOK THE RICE and 
can confirm that the author is right. If you try to just talk about 
rice and not cook it, the taste is terrible.

Anwway, the author was givem as "Guru RHH." which turns out to be an 
expatriate and deceased Englishman named Ralph Houston. He was a 
disciple of nicolas Roerich, who in turn was a Theosophist who went 
to Tibet in the twenties and claims to have contacted the master 
Morya.

Houston says if someone's prgans are harvested in this life, that 
results in a corresponding body weakness in the next. I think the 
example he gave was corneas. If they take ypur corneaafter you go on 
to your reward, then you will have weak eyes in your next life. On 
that theory, someone whose whole body was harvested would be in a 
hell of a mess the next time around.

Now here is how I interpret his idea in terms of Theosophy. I am not 
saying he is right, only that he may have a point.

As I understand it, the "astral body" (linga sarira) is thought to be 
a sort of prototype for the physical body, and as such is thought to 
come into existence before the infant is fully formed. It is 
this "astral body" which is thought to be strongly influenced by the 
thoughts of the mother. There is a long discussion of this idea in 
ISIS UNVEILED. The "astral body" theory was posited partly to 
explain "mother's marks" in which something makes a strong impression 
on the mind of a pregnant woman and a corresponding birthmark is 
produced on the body of her unborn child. I have seen this myself, 
incidentally, and Blavatsky is right that "mother's marks" do exist, 
although it is my understanding that the possibility is denied by the 
medical profession. This Theosophical "astral body" is also supposed 
to explain certain other reported phenomena and is mentioned and 
described in the ZOHAR.

The physical body being a dependent form to the "astral body" it is 
presumed that so long as the physical body exists (i.e., has not 
completely decomposed) the existence of the "astral body" is implied 
as well. In other words, the "astral body" is not eternal and yet 
does not completely decompose until after the physical body 
completely decomposes. The linga sarira can exist without the sthula 
sarira, but not v.v. One would therefore think mummification such as 
the Egyptians used would affect this process one way, and that 
cremation, such as HPB ordered for herself, would affect it another.

What is not made clear, but seems to be implied, is that the "desire 
form" (kama rupa) is probably the prototype for the "astral body." 
If that interpretation is correct, then the kama rupa would 
completely decompose only after the linga sarira completely 
decomposes. This would explain the notion that the kama rupa may be 
detained in kama loka for centuries.

Incidentally, the idea of kama loka, or kama dhatu as it is usually 
called, is found in southern Buddhist sutras and is referred to in 
the writings of Rhys Davids.

That said, consider the phenomenon known as "repercussion." I have 
no idea whether this belief is correct or not, but it was believed in 
England during the seventeenth century that if one saw the projected 
double (kama rupa or mayavi rupa) of some living person, and fired a 
shot at it, the owner would show a wound in the exact spot on his or 
her body. This idea was actually used in legal process for 
witchcraft, since it was assumed only witches had psychic 
experiences. This seems to be another example of the principle 
involved in the production of 
"mother's marks."

So suppose there is such a thing as repercussion in reverse, in which 
damage to the sthula sarira results in damage to the linga sarira and 
thence to the kama rupa. If Ralph Houston's theory has any validity 
to it, then that would seem to be the implied mechanism. If some 
greedy dentist knocked you out for a dental surgery, then harvested 
some organs for profit, that would affect the kama rupa, which is 
supposedly the vehicle of karma.

What is not clear is (1) whether Blavatsky would have agreed with 
Houston's theory had organ transplants been a reality when she was 
around, and (2) regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees if 
the theory is true in a scientific sense.

What thinkest thou? Does Houston have a point, and, if so, is it in 
his position or on the top of his head?