Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00371)

When I find the time (hopefully in the near future), I will try to 
make some comments on what you write below.  Interestingly, among 
Walter Carrither's papers is some interesting writing about this 
very subject "... the NIRMANAKAYA not the 'astral' that blended with 
your astral...".

It is interesting to compare what Ernest wrote in his book with 
Walter's interpretation.  I must say that they are totally different
interpretations, at least I think so!  but I will have to refresh my 
memory on this.

But I would suggest that if you are to understand what HPB is 
talking about in the quote above, you would have to look at it in 
context for example with what she wrote about 4 or 5 months later to 
Judge.

In a letter dated February 23, 1887, HPB wrote to William Judge: 

"Yes there are 'two persons' in me.  But what of that?  So are there 
two in you; only mine is conscious & responsible & yours is not."  
The Theosophical Forum, July 1932, p. 226 

See other relevant quotes from HPB at:

http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/whitelotus2000.htm

Amd concerning the relevant quote "... the NIRMANAKAYA not 
the 'astral' that blended with your astral..."  I find that Peter 
Merriott (who once was a contributor to this forum) had an 
interpretation of this quote which seemed to me very similar if not 
identical to that of Walter's.

More later.  When I can find the documents and the time.

Daniel


Robert wrote......................

As for the Nirmanakaya speaking in HPB's voice, this is interesting.
Naturally, anything I say is speculation, but in stretching to
understand this, perhaps we may learn something.  Remember HPB wrote:
"The trouble with you is that you do not know the great change that
came to pass in you a few years ago.  Others have occasionally their
astrals changed and replaced by those of Adepts (as of Elementaries)
and they influence the outer, and the higher man.  With you, it is 
the
NIRMANAKAYA not the 'astral' that blended with your astral.  Hence 
the
dual nature and fighting."  (Echoes, I, xxxv)

What if HPB is describing to Judge a similar process to the one that
she herself underwent?  This would be one reason why she might be
familiar with such an esoteric process.  HPB wrote this letter in
1886.  "A few years ago" could refer to 1884 when Judge was in India.
  This is the argument made by Ernest Pelletier in TJC, that Judge
underwent some sort of initiation at that time.  There are 28 days
where his whereabouts are unknown.

How do we understand what HPB is trying to say here?  No doubt it is
clear to Judge, but less so to me.  One explanation might be as 
follows.

"Others have occasionally their astrals changed and replaced by those
of Adepts (as of Elementaries) and they influence the outer, and the
higher man."

Is HPB saying here that sometimes an Adept replaces a chela's astral
with his own?  In this position the more purified astral of the adept
would be expressed outwardly, and the consciousness with fewer
distractions would find it easier to influence his higher self?  This
would be a beneficial influence.  The opposite would be where an
Elementary managed to replace an individuals astral with its own -
hence the parenthetical comment.

"With you, it is the NIRMANAKAYA not the 'astral' that blended with
your astral.  Hence the dual nature and fighting."

Here Judge is being told that the NIRMANAKAYA actually blended with
his astral, hence all the negative aspects of his own astral is there
in conjunction with the nobler aspects of the NIRMANAKAYA.  This gave
Judge a "dual nature" in a sense.  He was often fighting with 
himself,
or at least felt that this was so.

If HPB was the former case, the Adept blended with her Astral, maybe
after her death, the psychological apparatus that was HPB continued
for some time, animated by the Adept, and naturally she responded in
ways familiar to those who knew her.

This is speculation of course, but it points to the fact that there 
is
no one way in which occult procedures are conducted.  Once you know
the principles, how you accomplish something is up to the
practitioners.  As a novice, I tend to get trapped by definitions
sometimes and miss the point that this is a living doctrine.  It is
not until I get questioned on these matters and actually begin to
think about them that I begin to see the possibilities.  I hope this
helps as it certainly helped me clarify things.