Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00913)

My understanding is that the very exceptional cases are cases of suicides, and accidental deaths, where all the principles are intact on the Astral plane.
Cass

"M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@stofanet.dk> wrote:

Hallo Daniel and all,

Mail 2

My views are:

My first answer left something out of the picture.

HPB writes:
"There can be no conscious meeting in Kamaloka hence no grief. . . . in 
Kamaloka there is as a rule (apart from vicarious life and consciousness 
awakened through contact with medium) no recognition of friends or 
relatives. . . . We meet those we loved only in Devachan."

Now I do not have acces to the full text to the first mentioned quotes in 
the above, so I will have to ask one of you to provide it,
so I can much more fully explain what HPB are saying in the above.

But HPB also writes:

"According to the Eastern teaching, the state of the deceased in Kama-loka
is not what we, living men, would recognise as "conscious." . . . the
process of stripping off the lower . . . principles is an unconscious one in
all normal human beings. It is only in very exceptional cases that there
is a slight return to consciousness in Kama-loka; and this is the case of
very materialistic unspiritual personalities. "
Blavatsky, H.P. Collected Writings, Volume IX, p. 164.

So the first quote in the above seem to be in selfcontradiction with the one 
in the below.
Well, that is my view. The first quote in the above seem to forget about the 
"very exceptional cases" which the below quote refers to.
And that is why I would like someone to provide the full text, so nobody 
misunderstnad the poor woman.
(And perhaps Daniel Caldwell could persuade Ray Morgan to add a more full 
text or a footnote with explanations at this place in the link: 
http://blavatskyarchives.com/morganafterdeath.htm )



from
M. Suflight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 7:11 PM
Subject: Theos-World Sufilight on the words UNCONSCIOUSNESS and 
CONSCIOUSNESS


>
>
> Sufilight,
>
> You wrote:
>
> ====================================================
> It is simply a question about the definitions used
> in the words UNCONSCIOUSNESS and CONSCIOUSNESS.
> CWL simply defined the word UNCONSCIOUSNESS differently than HPB
> when he talked about Kamaloka in the above link.
> ===================================================
>
> Can you tell us HOW CWL defined the word UNCONSCIOUSNESS differently?
>
> Using the examples at:
>
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/morganafterdeath.htm
>
> what was CWL's definition and why was it different from that
> of Blavatsky and Koot Hoomi?
>
> I'm trying to understand your contention but I am not at all clear as
> to what you are actually trying to say.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 




Yahoo! Groups Links








		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! – Get yours free!    

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]