Hi everybody!

When it comes to Leadbeater's writings, I am the first to admit when I read something I think is wrong. I just came across Leadbeater saying the Monad exists on the Anupapadaka Plane.

[The] “... monad resides permanently upon the second of our planes — the monadic [Anupapadaka] — and when he descends upon the third — the plane of nirvana — he manifests himself as the triple spirit, and this triple spirit is a reflection or (even more truly) an expression of the Logos as He manifests Himself in our set of planes. His first manifestation on our highest plane is also triple. In the first of these three aspects [the Atman] He does not manifest Himself on any plane below the highest...” (Charles Leadbeater, The Inner Life, page 150)

Geoffrey Barborka, however, disagrees.

“Atma-Buddhi ... constitutes the Monad.” (Geoffrey Barborka, The Divine Plan, p. 10)

The Monad, therefore, is not seen as existing on the Anupapadaka, but is seen as a combination of two principles, one existing on the Atman Plane, and the other existing on the Buddhi Plane.

"The seven so-called principles of man, as given from the beginning by the Masters and HPB, are not the monads of our constitution, but the fields in which the different monads work. That is really a very important point because I have heard some of our people speak of the manas as the ego, and it is not. The manas is the field of mentation in us. The kama is not the animal ego in us. It is the field of desire both spiritual and all kinds. There is a divine desire, the atma-buddhi of kama, as there is a gross desire, the prana and the linga-sarira of kama. There is also a manas of the kama, and that is why we speak of kama-manas, which is our own particular mental evolutionary state at present. In other words, these sevenfold principles of men are the fields wherein the respective monads work, the fields of their operation."

G. de P. Dialogues III pg 432

Purucker talks quite a bit about multiple monads in the compound nature of man.

Christian,

Long time no hear!

You said,

“I am not sure why commentary of Geoffrey Barborka, or Purucker should prove automatically nullifying on the opinions of another notable Theosophist.”

--> They do not! One of the rules of Theosophy is that there is no dogma — no Theosophist can tell another Theosophist what to believe. Freedom of belief is assured in Theosophy, and this is a good example. When Blavatsky demanded (and got) a lack of dogma in Theosophy, she made sure that Purucker could not tell Leadbeater what to believe, and vice versa.

“It seems to me to be a matter of when we chose to perceive it.”

--> I agree that what makes sense to me may not make sense to you. That is the beauty of Theosophy — each person is forced to decide what makes sense to them, and your logical deductions may take you to different conclusions than mine, which is fine — nay, required — in Theosophy.

How, then, to decide what to believe? The only way is by looking at the different ideas, and seeing which makes sense. Here is what makes sense to me.

You said,

“I do not believe ‘Atma-Buddhi ... constitutes the Monad.’ as you show Geoffrey Barborka saying.”

--> It is a fascinating question. I am reminded of the Stanzas of Dzyan, where they tell the story of humanity having no Manas for the first three and a half races on Earth.

“... we find primeval man, issued from the bodies of his spiritually fireless progenitors, described as aeriform, devoid of compactness, and MINDLESS. He had no middle principle to serve him as a medium between the highest and the lowest, the spiritual man and the physical brain, for he lacked Manas. The Monads which incarnated in those empty SHELLS, remained as unconscious as when separated from their previous incomplete forms and vehicles.” (SD vol 2 p 80)

[A human being of the first and second races] “…could stand, walk, run, recline, or fly. yet it was still but a Chhaya, a shadow with no sense.... Man remained an empty senseless bhuta....” (Stanza ii-4-17)

“It is only at the mid-point of the 3rd Root Race that man was endowed with Manas.” (SD vol 2 pp 254-255)

During this time, humans consisted of the higher two principles (Atman and Buddhi) and the four lower principles (physical body, astral body, Prana, and Kama or desires). The one missing principle was Manas.

“First, the Breath, then Buddhi, and the Shadow-Son (the Body) were 'CREATED.' But where was the pivot (the middle principle, Manas)? Man is doomed…. In other words, the two higher principles can have no individuality on Earth, cannot be man, unless there is [a] the Mind, the Manas-Ego, to cognize itself, and [b] the terrestrial false personality, or the body of egotistical desires and personal Will, to cement the whole, as if round a pivot (which it is, truly), to the physical form of man….” (SD vol 2 p 241)

It was this Manas that was missing, and this Manas that prevented the humans of the first three and a half races from being truly “human”.

During this time, our Monads were unsuccessful at making full connections with their upadhis (Manas-less humans). Such a connection was the reason for our humanly existence. Manas was the missing link, and continued to be missing for three and a half races.

~~~

Now, what does this have to do with the idea that Monads are only Atma-Buddhi (lacking Manas)? It seems to me, a Monad that does not have a Manas (and is unable to connect to its human upadhi) is still a Monad. That is why the theory that Monads are Atma-Buddhi makes sense to me.

…which disagrees with what Leadbeater taught.

You said,

“Spirit Cosmically, the homogeneous emanation from(1) the universal cosmic monad; in man, the direct emanation of his spiritual monad(2) , the immortal element in us which never was born and which retains through the mahamanvantara its own quality, essence, and characteristics. It sends(3) its ray through the laya-centers of all the various sheaths of consciousness-substance, and is itself a ray of the all-spirit is used specifically for the union of the higher part of manas with atma-buddhi.”

--> All of this makes sense to me.

You asked,

“Should we necessarily speak of Monads in reference to Man? All things in this Physical plane have their monadic beginning.”

--> I am not sure what you mean. Certainly, there is a clear connection between Monads and individual human beings.

“I would gather, then, that no [lasting residence] of the Monad is implied.”

--> The interaction of Monads with the physical world can only be considered to be temporary. What else is possible?

“That the Monad exists on a particular Plane, as Leadbeater states, would still be different from Barborka's assertion that Atma-Buddhi constitutes the Monad.”

--> This gets into some tricky language. I would say the only Plane the Monad “exists” on is the Buddhic Plane. This is tricky because Atman “exists” on only the Atman Plane, which has been said to be a Plane of non-existence. I do not see how the Monad could be said to exist on any Plane lower than the Buddhic Plane.

“…the Monad is a combination of two principles, one existing on the Atman, and the other existing on the buddhi Plane would seem to be a ‘timed event, and one perhaps specific to Man.’ ”

--> I would agree it is a timed (temporary) event, an event that constitutes not only of man, but atoms, planets, galaxies, and other Monadic emanations.

Christian,

You said,

"It seemed that Leadbeater was being dismissed out of hand."

--> I usually defend Leadbeater, but this one time I was not defending him, so it may look like I was belittling him. No such belittling was meant.

"I find many of the phrases in the SD to be worded vaguely."

--> This is why I have devoted myself to explaining The Secret Doctrine. I fear it is a project that will take the rest of my life!

"well, what are they not saying?"

--> Another problem is that parts of The Secret Doctrine are intentionally made to be confusing.

"So, it can be a slow process for those of us who can't take things on faith, and where the use of logic requires a rather large set of known facts. I think this leads me to appreciate the discussions, sometimes, more than the answers. I imagine at least a few others seek the absorbtion of the rationale, as well, before they can reach common conclusions."

--> Another problem is that The Secret Doctrine is very hard to read. The writing style is chaotic, and many sentences are composed in a very confusing way — some sentences are not sentences at all, when analyzed grammatically.

"...someone like myself cannot accept words themselves."

--> It gets even worse, when cosmic concepts are presented in English language phraseology. Add to this confusing symbology (such as the universe being symbolized as a giant egg) and it really gets messy.

"I have to get a feel for both the person communicating a philosophical topic, and where they are coming from."

--> How true! You cannot just sit down with most Theosoohical literature and read it, like it was a cheap romance novel. You have to concentrate and ask yourself, "Huh? What does that mean?"

"I find myself always searching to see if broad terms are being used in narrow contects."

--> And the Monad is a perfect example. Parts of the literature refer only to a human's Monad. Other parts refer to aspects of the Monad that apply to galaxies as well as humans. We then have to figure out which statement refers to which aspect of the Monad, and after a while our brains get all gully-wompussed!

Christian,

You asked,

"Did a lot of thinking go into the concept of Monads, or not enough???"

--> I am not sure what you are asking. What part of Monds do you find difficult to understand?

"Blavatsky takes difference to Leadbeater's, and others, in the TS who propose and published a simple dual development of Kingdoms..."

--> I disagree. Leadbeater goes into great detail about the transition from animal to human. Jinarajadasa (one of the people in Leadbeater's group) talked a lot about the lower seven levels of the Ladder.

"She also proposes there are 10 Kingdoms."

--> That seems to be a standard Theosophical teaching.

"Eldon Tucker ... expresses his understanding of Blavatsky to mean there are Elementals in all Kingdoms, and they move through the planes, that we were Elemental, and we are destined to be Dhayani-Chohan through a gradual cycles."

--> That is a good summarization of an important point in my belief system. Are you saying this does not fit into your belief system?

"I cannot say that I easily accept the Blavatsky notion, which seems to be a deliberate anti-Hindu Ancient Wisdom (5,500 years old) position, in favor of a modern 2,300 year old Buddhism. Which, to me seems to be a 'subjective' opinion on her part, not the employment of Ancient Wisdom."

--> Are you saying Hinduism supports the ideas of cross-over more than Theosophy does?

"I am leaning to her being biased in favor of Buddhism. Regardless, I am trying to understand their proposition, grossly extravagant as it may be."

--> It is very easy to feel she was biased towards Buddhism. However, I like the idea that she was merely pointing out commonalities in all religions. I can understand your frustration over her teaching against the idea of cross-over.

"I can see why Theosophy holds no concept of eternity."

--> How does the idea of non-eternity fit into your belief system?

"The Blavatsky concept of 10 Kingdoms and minute advancement seems like a man-made mental process or system to me, but I am trying to expand it to see how it plays out."

--> I like the theory, because it makes perfect sense to me. Feel free to ask questions about it.

"I must say, if Theosophy is supposed to be scientific and provable, I don't see how this concept could ever have been proved."

--> Theosophy (and all religion) does not lend itself to scientific proof. Scientific investigation involves creating an experiment (using double-blinds, or at least a control), and this just does not work well. I do not think anyone says Theosophy is provable.

"I presume this plays out through the cycle of Globes which does not have a direct correspondence."

--> I see a direct correspondence. You do not?

"The Devas populate all the elements of nature, on all the different planes."

--> Does this fit into your belief system?

Christian,

Yes, the chart shows the extrapolation as Blavatsky would see it.

Christian,

Let's take a look at your notes.

"There is an infinitude of these Grand Cycles."

--> This is in keeping with Theosophical teachings.

"Kingdoms are what comprise the Worlds, spheres, planets and stars."

--> We need to define Kingdoms. In Theosophy, Kingdoms usually refers to the Animal Kingdom, the Plant Kingdom, etc. Planets and stars, then are not Kingdoms, per say. It is also possible to separate planets and stars from the Beings that caused the planets and stars to come into existence, Beings that use these planets and stars as “physical bodies”. These Beings are definitely part of a Kingdom. A Kingdom, then, refers more to that which ensouls an object, than the object being ensouled.

“As Hierarchies are a fundamental of Theosophy they are expressed in this chart as follows: Within each of the 'levels', there is a horizontal 'building' process going on, one which is constrained to that particular Plane. As the Cycle itself progresses, from one Plane to the Next in that Cycle, then that is a Verticle Hierarchy of developing 'Constitution,' which is itself expressed as Spirit, Soul Body, or the 7 principles, or the Trinity.”

--> This is in keeping with Theosophical teachings.

“Globes, of which there are 12, correlate more directly with the seven Planes within each LEVEL, and not the Kingdoms themselves.”

--> This is in keeping with Theosophical teachings. Globes (planets) are merely places for Kingdoms to occupy and advance spiritually.

“'EACH' of the LEVELS within the cycle results in its own 'perfection', or Absolute,or spiritual summit. This constitutes a diety or collective entity. This is the most spiritual pole of this hierarchy, but as well, the most lowly and material pole of the successive LEVEL.”

--> This is in keeping with Theosophical teachings.

“Throughout this LEVEL process, within the Cycle, Monads are animated from Monads above itself (the next Plane), yet, it expresses itself through its prior, and thus, lower Monad experience.”

--> This is in keeping with Theosophical teachings.

“There are points in time where we can distinguish some Monads as being Physical, Human Globe, Solar, Galactic Monads, to name but some. However, this 'time' if referring to finite-time, in a finite-Universe, and that relatively speaking, ALL OF THIS is repeated in an infinitude of subsequent Universe,s just as it has in an infinitude of prior Universes, each with its own Space and Time.”

--> This is in keeping with Theosophical teachings.

“Each LEVEL illustrated above represents a short series of involutionary steps of materialzatioin through the lower Planes, followed by lengthy stay in the middle fourth Plane, followed still by a short series of etheralizing steps upward in an evolutionary Ascent back into Spirit. SelfConsciousness is achieved in ALL cases at the mid-point, each time a new LEVEL of the cycle ensues.”

--> This is in keeping with Theosophical teachings, especially the part about Self Consciousness being achieved at the mid-point, which in our case was the fourth race of the fourth planet of the fourth Round. I am not sure about the “SelfConsciousness is achieved in ALL cases at the mid-point, each time a new LEVEL of the cycle ensues.” part, however.

“Somehow we next start off at the very elemental bottom of some 10 Kingdoms in some other space.”

--> I do not think I agree. It seems to me that, once we achieve self-consciousness, it is not necessary to do this again. However, some parts of The Secret Doctrine seem to indicate this does indeed take place.

“Actually, we continue this cyclical pattern in an infinite succession of Grand Cycles as illustrated in total, above.”

--> This is in keeping with Theosophical teachings.

“Therefore, as illustrated above, Evolution is a truley endless 'unfoldment', resulting in bodies (physicalness/Matter) of superior quality for the purpose of greater expression (Spiritual) of the Monad.”

--> This is in keeping with Theosophical teachings. There is an especially important distinction between Theosophy and most other philosophies. Theosophy teaches we do not just exist, we are constantly evolving. This is a big difference between Theosophy and Christianity. According to Christianity, once we get to Heaven, we stop evolving. Theosophy teaches the exact opposite idea.

“In other words, with the notes included, am I still on the same page with you/Blavatsky?”

--> Yes, you are.

~~~

You have brought up a lot of complicated concepts. How does all of this fit into your belief system?

Christian,

You quoted,

"...provide the field for the evolution of, 10 kingdoms." (Pratt )

--> Here is the idea that planets provide a "field" or place in which the 10 Kingdoms can evolve and grow.

You said,

"I have heard in lectures by de Purucker, and by Boris de Zirkoff, that the schemes presented in the doctrine can be carried infinitely, either prior, or into the future. This would be necessary to accept infinite Universes."

--> The idea of countless universes is a common Theosophical teaching.

You quoted,

"...an endless growth, endless improvement, endless development, endless evolution, therefore an endless changing of consciousness, going ever higher and higher out of the human sphere into the semi-divine, and out of the semidivine worlds into the divine, and thereafter into the super-divine, and so on ad infinitum." (de Puruker)

--> This is a nice way of putting it. Think of us as we go through our human incarnations, which is a cycle of activity. Then, think of how we previously comprise the Animal Kingdom, which shows us a larger cycle contains both the Human and Animal Kingdoms. Think of how both are part of a larger cycle called a Round, which is part of an even larger cycle caled a Planetary Manvantara. Think of how all of this is just one part of a cycle called a Solar Manvantara.

Each cycle is inside a larger cycle. On and on it goes, cycles inside of cycles. And, we have no idea how far this ladder of cycles-inside-of-cycles goes.

"The whole Kosmos is guided, controlled, and animated by almost endless series of Hierarchies of sentient Beings...."

--> This fits into the theory nicely, because something or somebody has to organize all these cycles, and cause them to come into being in the first place.

"There are no limits in any direction where evolution can be said to begin, or where we can conceive of it as ending...." (de Puruker)

--> We certainly cannot imagine how far the cycles extend in either direction.

"I will be presenting a subsequent concept, soon."

--> I await your presentation.

Christian,

First things first. Where does Blavatsky say there are ten Kingdoms? I am having trouble finding the quote.

Christian,

The main issue so far is whether there are seven or ten Kingdoms. Blavatsky says there are seven, as you noted in your quotation from The Secret Doctrine.

Let me say that I am not a student of de Purucker's, and I have not read his books. He says there are ten Kingdoms, and, quite frankly, I do not know where he gets that number from. Perhaps someone who is familiar with de Purucker's work will be able to help us out.

There are many different authors in the field of Theosophy, and many times the ideas of one author will conflict with those of another. It becomes our job as students of Theosophy to decide which ideas make sense to us and which do not. It seems to me Blavatsky says seven, de Purucker says ten, and I will go with what Blavatsky says.

Christian,

You said,

"It seems contrived to insert three elemental Kingdoms below Mineral for the purpose to expressing 'states', eg. fluidic."

--> I want to share Annie Besant's ideas on this. In her book "A study in Consciousness" she outlines the descent of spirit into matter. Atman veils intself in Buddhi. Buddhi veils itself in Manas. According to Besant, it is at the Manas or Mental level that these veils take on anything near to what can be called "form". This first form is called the First Elemetal. That Elemetal then takes on another veil, and that veil can function of the Astral Plane. The same thing happens again — that Elemetal then takes on another veil, and that veil can function of the Physical Plane. This is how I understand the appearance of three Elementals.

"Occult History has been consistent in establishing 4 elemental Kingdoms, with three AEthers. This history may not be Buddhist, but it is established ancient wisdom as well."

--> I wonder if this is the same thing as the idea of four elements, which is an idea Theosophy teaches.

"Within these Humans, as well as Elementals [share] the environment, although at different levels of evolutions. This is actually not much different than classical theosophy, as Blavatsky's strong supports DO say there are Elementals, of which they name {Deva, Angel, Gnomes, Fairies, and other spirit with Monads}, that are in EACH AND EVERY plane."

--> This agrees with Theosophy.

"10 is not Septenary, it is a "fix" to make a square peg fit in a round hole."

--> I remember reading in de Purucker's quote there are actually 12 Kingdoms. I wonder if this is related to the 12 (not seven) planets of our Round. Geoffrey Barborka, in his book The Divine Plan, says our Round consists of 12 planets.



I wonder if this is what de Purucker is referring to.

"Classical Theosophy has to chop off progress and development at the beginning and ending of these long Grand Cycles of evolution...."

--> Theosophy has to do some chopping. Otherwise the story would be too long. It has been said if Blavatsky had written about everything she had access to, it would have filled libraries. She didn't have that much time, so she mainly wrote about Earth and humanity, and left the other information untouched.

"Contrary to your answer earlier, Nick, Blavatsky states very early on in her Secret Doctrine that 'proofs' and scientific method are indeed a part of the Ancient Wisdom."

--> Yes, she does, but she is referring to logical and philosophical proof, not scientific proof.

"She even goes so far as to claim that the adepts, initiates, Masters and that whole class of people who live their lives using their psychically developed consciousnesses have evidenced through observence and interaction, as well as proven their determinations through the scientific method of repetition of results."

--> Yes, she did. But by evidence I think she was referring to direct observation via psychic abilities. Such psychic investigation cannot be done in a scientific lab.

"Although she is fond of mentioning India, and Tibet, and China, there are more belief systems there than she seems to draw from. It concerns me that she seems to subjectively 'choose' who she will support, yet throw in elements from the other belief systems when she is arguing against scholors in the world."

--> Blavatsky had a definite belief system. According to Blavatsky, this belief system is the source of all belief systems used on Earth today. Some have kept closer to the original teachings, while others have deviated greatly. That is why she agrees more with some, and diasgrees with others.

"It seems to me that if she wants to through out certain religions, belief systems and philosophies, she would need to do that entirely, and with justification."

--> She does. She goes through religion after religion, and show how they have deviated from the Ancient Wisdom. (All of them have.) Look at Christianity and Buddhism. They both came from the same original source, the Divine Wisdom. Look how they have both deviated from the original teachings, in entirely different ways.

"There are several Tibetan 'schools' so to speak..."

--> How can all these schools be correct? They cannot. That is what Blavatsky is talking about.

"Why does not this evolutionary scheme of things reflect all of these schools?"

--> Because all religions and philosophies get corrupted as the centuries go by. This is a key Theosophical teaching.

"If only the Buddhist influence is choosen, then Blavatsky is simply shoring up that subjective choice in beliefs."

--> Blavatsky felt Buddhism was the closest to the Ancient Wisdom. (I agree.)

"...there [are] other ways to look at the cyclical evolutionary process."

--> And doing so requires critical thinking. That is why Theosophy promotes our developing of our critical thinking skills so much.

"Blavatsky's pronouncements may very well work for our Humanity. But, when the conversation turns to Devas, or Elementals or other Monadic Beings, we have to expand our ways of looking at things."

--> Blavatsky always said she did not give the whole story.

"Theosphists from Blavatsky's camp, as well as those who differ in opinion, have very clearly pointed out that LIFE FROM OTHER WORLDS, solar systems etc (no limitations implied) DO INDEED EXIST on the Planes we relate to. They have also said Planes may not be the same in other systems, or Universes."

--> This agrees with Blavastkian Theosophy. According to Blavatsky, our solar syytem was designed by our solar Guardian-Spirit. Other solar Guardian-Spirits will design solar systems that look different.

"The fact that other consciouisness can EVOLVE for levels, or cycles, or perhaps even arbitrary periods on our Planes should convince an open-minded theosphist to accept the outcomes, and even the objectives, might be different for them."

--> I agree. I think Theosophy promotes such thinking.

"Man or Deva Kingdom. That sure sounds like it suggests a dual development to me, as Leadbeater expresses."

--> That very well may be the case.

"Now there are --- there MUST BE "failures" in the etherial races of the many classes of Dhyan Chohans or Devas as well as among men."

--> Blavatsky says the first attempt at creating a human race was a huge failure.

"I bring you back to your view that there can be no proof in religious and spiritual beliefs. What?"

--> No proof of the type that can be duplicated in scientific labs. Direct psychic observation does work, which is what I think you do in your psychic work.

"I might suggest that you are speaking as a non-psychic person..."

--> Indeed, I am.

"I will allow you that. I, indeed, have explored many things that Thesophy expresses. Frankly, this is why I leanded to Leadbeater, his propositions were proving more evident based on personal psychic and spiritual research."

--> And I feel Theosophy encourages you to do such research.

"I may differ in my opinion about some of the details about how some things appear clairvoyantly, but on the whole, he did a good job."

--> Some of the stuff he said was (in my opinion) goofy, and some of it was excellent. Leadbeater has given me great answers on specific topics that I cannot find anywhere else.

"I have yet to see this information put forward for review and scientific (from a spiritual method) verification."

--> There is a ton of work that needs to be done. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of volunteers to do the work. That is why we appreciate you sharing your experiences with us.

" 'Monads are not Perfect.' Only, the Absolute can be perfect, and he did NOT create the Monads."

--> If "He" had, there would be no need for us to be born into a physical world.

"I think that there was NO mould as Blavatsky's camp would hold out."

--> One day all of us will be psychic, and we will find out for ourselves. In the meantime, all we can do is get bits and pieces from psychics like Blavatsky and yourself.

"There is no 'discovery,' no true impetus."

--> All Blavatsky did was present a theory. Whether or not it is true remains to be seen. But I like her theory because it is the best I have seen so far.

"But, isn't the answer to the above paragraph absurd too? Why would there not be an infinitude of moulds? If we accept an infinitude of Universes, then why could not those INTERACT with ours, thus creating an infinite numbe of possibilities."

--> This gets into us trying to understand the infinite. This is why Buddhism (and Theosophy) advises us that our finite minds cannot understand the infinite.

"Why should we belive that these Universes are even successive, lke "a great breath?" This does not seem logical."

--> It seems logical to me.

"Why would they not ALL be going on at the same time, AND passing through one another?"

--> The idea that they are does not make sense to me. But maybe they are — who knows? Again, this is a matter of our finite minds trying to understand the infinite.

"Isn't classical Theosophy itself anthropromorphisizing God, the Absolute?"

--> No. Just the oppposite.

"Everything is just so "pat" and setup for our precious and wonderful Human Conscousness, and we just happen to be just perfectly situated in its development."

--> I think just the opposite is true.

"I should think that whatever Man can conceive of, it could not exceed the capacity of the Absolute and His plan. Frankly, It seems to be absurd that we could even be minutely correct in any of it."

--> All we can do is try.

"However, it serves a purpose of giving man something reasonable [from his perspective] to grasp, for to live in a world of utter unknown I believe as well, is too much for our minds to handle."

--> Theosophy says are main purpose is not to try to understand the Absolute (which is impossible), but to learn what we can do to accelerate our progress to the next level on the Ladder of Life.

"Theosophy gives us the promise of taking advantage of ALL the Ancient Wisdom, the learned and explored views of intelligent people so that we can always be working at our Highest level of comprehensioni. If Mr. Leadbeater, and others, can add to that great resource, and it differs in some small ways with a classical view, then I say, Yoo Hoo."

--> You are preaching to the choir. I agree with what Leadbeater tried to do.

"As Mankind evolves, [what] he expects from his existence evolves [too]."

--> This is what Theosophy teaches.

"Our scope of our Spiritual Attainment potential should be increasing, if it even is a spiritual thing."

--> It is.

"Man is smart enough now spiritually to realize we could not possibly know what is going on.... No diffinitive view is going to fill this need, but Theosophy as a 'vehicle' for ever advancing thought and exploration might."

--> I am grateful for everything Theosophy has brought me.

"...Dhyâni-Chohans, Archangels, or whatever else ... are the unfinished production of evolution...."

--> We must keep in mind that even Dhyani-Chohans are still evolving.

"...INFINITY holds out a lot of possibilities for other ways to view things. I feel Theosophists are "obligated" to be open minded."

--> Theosophy requires us to be open-minded.

Christian,

We discussed,

"Blavatsky felt Buddhism was the closest to the Ancient Wisdom. --> ... it seems too subjective to me for Blavatsky to make such a choice...."

--> I do not see it as Blavatsky making a choice. I see it as her transmitting the ideas of the Mahatma's Ancient Wisdom as best she could.

You said,

"...Blavatsky ... presents Theosophy, in my mind, with a predisposition to Buddhism."

--> That is because the Ancient Wisdom, as taught by the Mahatmas, is similar to Buddhism.

"I cannot accept all of Buddhism. I do accept some things from other philosophies."

--> Theosophy encourages you to do so.

I am curious: which parts of Buddhism do you not like?

"People have a hard time accepting theosphists when they do not stick to Blavatsky's views."

--> (1) Blavatskian Theosophy is the views of Blavatsky. (2) Theosophy does not work for many people, and they are welcome to feel that way. (3) Theosophists like discussing Theosophy with like-minded Theosophists. If other people are going to reject Blavatsky's ideas they are welcome to do so, but they should not expect Theosophists to accept these non-Blavatskian ideas. What you are saying is, Theosophists reject ideas that oppose Theosophy, and I do not see anything wrong with that.

[Blavatsky] "...takes away the consideration part with her interjected view."

--> Which ideas do you think she interjected into her teachings?

"I think the concept of God breathing is anthropromorphic."

--> It is. The Breath refers to a cosmic phenomenon where there is an outflowing of energy which results in the appearance of the universe. Later, the energy is drawn back "inward" and the universe disappears.

Regarding the anthropomorphizing of the term, no Theosophist believes it literally refers to some God actually breathing in and out. (Well, I suppose there are some Christian Theosophists who do.) I personally feel Blavatsky has done an excellent job of keeping all anthropromorphizing out of Theosophy.

"I am not seeing validation for this concept which supports why a GOD of this Absolute level, would need to breath, or rest either."

--> It is not "God" who rests, it is we who rest.

"The necessity for the ending of universes I cannot accept just yet."

--> It is the beginning of our rest time.

"Why" will remain my question to the Absolute. "Why bother with all of this busyiness then, when in less time to you than a snap of the fingers, it is all for naught?"

--> Why do you think we are here in this universe in the first place?

"Regardless, the fact that Theosophy says ALL will come to an end, does not set well with me."

-> I do not think Theosophy says that. We know the Great Breath and something called Timeless Time continue during a Cosmic Pralaya. Mulaprakriti also continues to "exist" during this period, so it is not a total cessation.

"For me, at least. I cannot accept any concept of futility."

--> I do not see any fultility in Theosophy at all. Theosophy does not really say where we are going, but Theosophy says we are making progress, it gives us criteria with which to measure our progress, and it gives us a timetable to ensure we are making progress at an acceptable pace.

"All that theosophy speaks to is simply an exercise in futility, something that did not even need to happen for the same result. If the "mould" is so tight that we all end up in a predestined place and time, then, why bother?"

--> I was outside last night, staring up at the billions of stars in the night sky. Why are they there? Why so many? What's worse, Theosophy says each one of those stars was a human at one time. All that Theosohy does is offer answers to these questions.

Your answers may be better. Do you think we need so many stars? What's the purpose? Do you think the universe could function just as well without us?

"I think differently, whether it fits with Theosophy or not...."

--> Theosophy encourages you to think differently.

"If we all remain simply walking plants and talking rocks, I suppose this may be how things end up. But, I feel there is greater benefit from life if it has no predestiny in it."

--> I think you are unhappy with the idea that the time required to qualify for Nirvana is limited. I think you are also unhappy with the idea that a strict code of conduct is required to get into Nirvana. Such Nirvanic concepts are harsh, and I can see how you would reject them.

"If we do not HAVE to jump through the hoops, and yet, can succeed by creating and exploring all the opportunities that existence allows us."

--> Theosophy agrees with you. Everyone has the right to refuse to evolve, and instead, remain a human for billions of years if they want to. This is a key Theosophical teaching. Unfortunately, Theosophy says that getting to Nirvana requires a lot of hoop-jumping, You are free to not jump through any hoops. You are free to reject the idea that hoop-jumping will make us any better.

"We monads (all monads) are just being let out of our box for a while to play, but we need to come home at the end of the day. Why? Are we going to miss dinner or something?"

--> Your answers may be better. Where did we Monads come from and why? Where are we going and why? What you are saying is, we are only here to have dinner, to have a good time, and that's it, right?

"To have a predefined rule, that the game will all be over soon, is sort of relative to no religion or belief at all. "You're born, then you die." If Theosophy just says you're born a few times, and you die a few times, then you die. Well, that seems kind of relative."

--> You seem to feel we live, then we die, and that's it. Theosophy disagrees, saying we are on the path to unimagineable cosmic consciousness.

"In psychic/mediumship work I've done, and that that I've read about, followed or explored, I have never heard it expressed from the otherside, throughout history, that there was the perspective over there, that everything was still just a temporary respite."

--> They have one theory. Theosophy has another.

Christian,

It does not. It refers to sleep or rest. No finality there.

"whole infinitude" & "All" refer to the solar system, which is what Sinnett asked about.

The second fundamental of the Secret Doctrine is the law of cycles or periodicity. So while there may be an end to a human life or a planetary, solar or galactic life; so it is with any manifest existence. But the unmanifest Life never dies.

Christian,

I agree the teachings, especially Blavatky's teaching's, are difficult to understand. That is why we are here -- to explain the teachings as clearly as possible.

Christian,

You said,

"A Round consists of 14 planets."

--> How can we get a cycle of 14 planets on a system of seven Planes of Existence?

"Frankly, the longer the better works for me."

--> I suppose there are two theories, one where there is a finite amount of time for us to enter Nirvana, and another where there is not. The first theory works for me, and the second one works for you. This is a good example of different people finding different theories that work for them.

"... it is the reaching some point of 'finality' that bothers me."

--> I do not see a point of finality in Theosophy.

"As long as Nirvana is a 'part' of the journey, and not the 'end,' I am happy, as Nirvana is something in our current Planes of reference."

--> I see Nirvana as only one step along the Path.

"I fully expect us to traverse an endless, or almost endless series of septenary Planes."

--> So do I.

"I don't think our interpretation of the Planes necessarily has to fit successive chains of Planes, as there may be an evolving relativity to these as well."

--> It is only a Theosophical idea that you are free to accept or reject.

"I have an expectation. I expect the consciousness that is now Man, will reach in some impossibly distant time and space, will develop to the state of what the Absolute is now."

--> I disagree!

"I, of course, have no concept of what the Absolute will be at that instance; the same, something more, something still and relatively incomprehensible?"

--> It is a fundamental Theosophy tenant that we can never understand what the Absolute truly is.

"...whatever I find that Man can attribute to an Absolute is likely our own destiny, as it is comprehensible."

--> This is exactly what Blavatsky was talking about.

" This implies failure in the Logos themselves, the Dhyani-Chohan, Gods, et'al."

--> I disagree. A parent must let a child make mistakes, because that is part of a child's learning process. But to say the parent is imperfect because the child makes mistakes is wrong.

"... they are themselves imperfect...."

--> It has been said the Dhyani-Chohan are still evolving, just as we are still evolving. But I think it is impossible for us to imagine what points in their "personality" the Dhyani-Chohan are trying to improve.

"As pertains Blavatsky's comment, I was not sure AT WHAT STAGE she meant to apply this."

She said,

"Now there are --- there MUST BE 'failures' in the etherial races of the many classes of Dhyan Chohans or Devas as well as among men."

--> I think it applies to the levels near the human level.

"It sounds like its a reference to life on this Earth, but it makes more sense if she references the mould of human-kind, and its earliest manifestations."

--> I think you are referring to levels such as Elementals and amimals. No, I do not think it applies to them.

"...how does one determine failure."

--> By evaluating if an action increases or decreases our speed along the Path. In the early history of man, we did terrible things that caused us the lose progress along the Path. We are still paying for those mistakes today. Clearly, these early mistakes of ours constitute failure.

"Man consciousness would likely be indistinguishable to us in many of its earliest manifestations and permutations."

--> I am not sure what you are referring to. Do you mean the early manifestations of the human race, for example the first two races?

Christian,

Two points that were made were:

"A Round consists of 14 planets. --> We understand that the man-bearing cycle of necessity of our solar system consists of thirteen objective globes...."

--> 13 makes more sense than 14. It may seem like a small difference, but it is significant.

"The planes, or hierarchical system, of our Universe comprise seven manifested and three unmanifest planes."

--> I do not think there is a direct, one-to-one correlation between ten Planes and ten Kingdoms. (Should there be?) For instance, we have four Kingdoms (mineral, plant, animal, and human) all sharing the Physical Plane, and parts of other Planes. I still do not see that there are ten Kingdoms, and I like Blavatsky's idea of seven Kingdoms better.

Regarding the man-becomes-God vs. man-becomes-the-Absolute, I believe we agree on this one:

"Perhaps, 'by God' does not mean the Absolute in this quote."

--> Exactly! This begs the question, then, how far up the Ladder can man go? I think man can go up the Ladder as far as the Ladder goes (with the understanding that the Absolute is not part of the Ladder.)

Well, then, how far does the Ladder go up? The highest thing, the most complicated object I see in the universe is a galaxy. This leads me to believe the highest goal we can conceive of is, eventually becoming a Guardian-Spirit of a galaxy. (It has been said that all sentient beings of the universe, even Guardian-Spirits of a galaxy, were once human.) Therefore, the way I see it, we can plan on becoming a Guardian-Spirit of a galaxy, which would qualify as a "god" but not the Absolute, which fits what you and I are saying perfectly.

(Hey, what about the Guardian-Spirit of a group of galaxies? Oh dear....)

"...even when we reach our Highest point (an infinitly moving one, but as viewed from our current perspective) I STILL don't think we will know what the Absolute truly is."

--> I agree. Somewhere in the Secret Doctrine it says even the Father, the unmanifest First Logos cannot comprehend the Absolute. indeed, trhe First Logos may not be even aware that an Absolute exists.

"What a shame it isn't self-evident in her teachings."

--> One of the biggest problems with HPB's writings is that they are very disorganized. She condensed a lot of information into a few thousand pages, and she also had a great deal of trouble trying to explain profound cosmic concepts in plain English. (Who wouldn't?) As a result, a lot of things in her writings are not self-evident. That is OK. She was the pioneer who brought the ideas to the attention of the world, and we are the pioneers who are making her ideas available in a logical, coherent, and understandable format.

"I think Theosophy has been rather clear and explicit that the Dhyani-Chohans are themselves imperfect, as are ALL non-Absolute things."

--> You are right. I was just making the point that our imperfections are not proof the Dhyani-Chohan are imperfect. Clearly, the Dhyani-Chohan are still evolving, which inferes a level of their imperfection.

"I think I was referring to "Man", being a monadic essence, rather than the evolved forms of humanity which we refer to as races."

--> It is good to keep track of "man-as-Monads" as well as "man-as-humans". Thank you for reminding us that we are Monads first, humans second.

"Sorry for the delay, it wasn't because I did not appreciate the answers."

--> Do not worry. There is no hurry. Theosophical concepts do not change overnight!

"My schedule changes frequently."

--> My, you are quite the continent-hopper! Please keep us posted as to where you are, and how it is going.

Christian,

You said,

"I've been reading where Blavatsky says 10 is the true magic number of all things."

--> Feel free to share a quote.

"You have high hopes for us all, I see. LOL"

--> I do! I see us all as guardian-spirits of stars and galaxies one day!

"I am thinking mayby a "black hole" would be way up there."

--> Each black hole has a guardian-spirit? What a concept!

"...which may mean it holds a yet untold mystery in Theosophy for us to discover."

--> I am sure books on Theosophy's untold mysteries would fill libraries.

Hey, Christian, if you can find a quote on that, feel free to share it. I am curious as to where DePurucker thinks the Monad "resides".

Is DePurucker considered an authority on the SD? (It would not surprise me.)

Here is the online version of the book.

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/fund/fund-1.htm

Here is an excellent index of Theosophical books online. (This is how I found DePurucker's book.)

http://www.austheos.org.au/clibrary/bindex-0.html

Hi Nick! You said:

I don't really see a contradiction there. The problem is that HPB talked about that in a very fragmentary way, and with a different terminology. But making connections you can have several hints that CWL’s statement could easily be in tune with hers.
To begin with, HPB’s seven planes, as states of consciousness, are only in five planes according to the degree of matter, like in the Besant/Leadbeater classification (shown in parenthesis):

I. Objective Consciousness (1a. Physical dense subplanes)
II. Astral Instinctual Consciousness (1b. Physical etheric subplanes)
III. Kâma-Prânic Consciousness (2. Emotional plane)
IV. Kâma-Mânasic Consciousness. (3a. Lower Mental subplanes)
V. Mânasic Consciousness (3b. Higher Mental subplanes)
VI. Buddhic Consciousness (4. Buddhic plane)
VII. Para-Ego or Atma (5. Atmic or Nirvanic plane)

Above those are:
6. Anupadaka plane
7. Adi plane

In the Collected Writings Vol. XII, p. 524 (Diagram I) when HPB describes the Inner Man, she depicts the five lower planes with the seven principles, and above them (on the sixth) she draws a triangle and says it is “the Three Hypostases of Atman”. That “triple Atman” is AB/CWL triple Monad on the plane of Anupadaka (the sixth) that manifests itself as Atma, Buddhi, and Manas on the lower planes. HPB calls it also “the Primordial Triangle”, and says:

‘(a) the primordial triangle, which as soon as it has reflected itself in the “Heavenly Man,” the highest of the lower seven––disappears, returning into “Silence and Darkness”.’

As we’ve seen, the “lower seven” are on the five planes in AB/CWL classification. The “Heavenly Man” stands here, in the microcosmos, for Atma, on the fifth plane.

And there is one more correlation: On the macrocosmic level, that primordial triangle is the Second Logos (the Third being the manifested triangle). As you know, this Logos is called the anupadaka, which justifies the use of that name for the sixth plane (the seventh being that of the First Logos).

I have more clues pointing out the same direction, but those need much more explanations to show the connections.

During some years I thought Leadbeater and Besant Theosophy was different in several points from Blavatsky’s. But while going deeply in HPB’s teachings I discovered many connections, in many fields and now I think they are essentially the same.
With G. de Purucker (and therefore Barborka) on the other hand, it happened just the opposite. The more I had my own understanding of HPB’s teachings, the more I found it incompatible with many of his teachings.
That is only my personal experience, in any case.

Pablo,

Thank you for that fascinating post. But first things first. Is the graphic in Collected Writings Vol. XII, p. 524 the same as this one in the SD?



(graphic from SD vol 1 p 200)

Hi Nick,

No, it is not. The graphic is the one where she shows the emanation of forces from the macrocosmos to the inner man, and finally to the physical man and its ten orifices.

On the other hand, that very famous graphic you post where she compares the chain of planets and the sephiroth, is not very reliable (or at least, is not absolute). See HPB's article "TETRAGRAMMATON" in CW Vol. VIII, pp. 140-159, and you will find a different location for the sephiroths on the planes.

HPB herself said that the position of the planes is "flexible" according to the object of your explanation (I don't have here the quotation, but I think it was in Vol. XII, answering a question regarding the position of the Alayic plane).

I hope it helps

I've found the quotation. It is in CW XII, p. 666.

Alaya is usually given as the sixth plane and related to Buddhi, but when talking about the Talas HPB gave it as the seventh, related to Atman.
Besant and/or Judge made a note on this, saying:

"A student here asked H.P.B. why the term Alayic should be given to the Âtmic instead of to the Buddhic state. ANS.––These classifications are not hard and fast divisions. A term may change places accordingly as the classification is exoteric, esoteric, or practical."

Pablo,

First, we should list the seven Planes of Existence that most people are familiar with:

1. Adi
2. Anupapadaka
3. Atman (Nirvana)
4. Buddhi
5. Mental (Manas)
6. Astral
7. Physical

It is fascinating to see your classification of seven consciousnesses (Kâma-Mânasic Consciousness, etc.) being squeezed into five Planes of Existence. I had not seen that before.

Some time ago, I was trying to match the story of the emanating of the Sparks in Shloka i-3-7 with the Planes of Existence. Do you think the Sparks are at the Adi, Anupapadaka, or Atman Level?

The third sloka in stanza IV says:

It is not a subject I’ve studied in depth, and there must be many interpretations to the sequences given in the stanza, because they seem to represent universal patterns. I can offer one interpretation in connection with what you’ve asked me:

It may symbolize the Third Logos (the One manifested) within the Virgin Egg (in the first manifested plane), which after its period of incubation goes forth (in the second manifested plane) as the six syzygies (pairs) of Aeons (the Higher), of which the Logos itself is the Seventh. From those, the five lower elements are emanated.
This could correspond to what Annie Besant speaks about as “The First Life-Wave”, that is, the building of the planes. Then, we have the awakening of entities (remember that the higher Aeons or Seven Primordial are the Logos itself, therefore they are ‘there’ from the beginning) that could correspond to the "Second Life-Wave".

Then the Triple Logos taking contact with Prakriti or Mahabuddhi (the one) forms the heavenly Tetraktis (the four, the triple Logos + Nature). From that connection, adding one more element (Mahat, the fifth cosmic principle) the Divine (or Heavenly) Man is formed (representing the middle Aeons, I suppose).

Then we have the emanation of the lower Aeons: builders, zodiacal constellations pitris, etc.

Is that of any help?

Pablo,

I was only asking about the Sparks, referred to in Shlokas i-4-3, i-4-4, i-5-2, and i-5-3.

It is easy for us to assume they exist on the Atman Plane, but I wonder if they could exist on a higher Plane.

Along this line of thinking, it is fascinating to compare the Sparks of Shlokas i-4-3, i-4-4, i-5-2, and i-5-3 with those of i-7-4, i-7-5, and i-7-7.

Well... the subject of the planes is quite complex, because there are several levels.
Taking HPB's classification, I tend to interpret that when we speak about the Atmic plane, we are talking about the Atmic plane on the lowest, or seventh, prakritic, that of our earth, or Globe D.
Now, is our real Monad there? or is it only its reflection on the lowest prakritic plane? To my mind, it has to be the reflection, because when the life-wave passes unto the Globe E, in a higher plane HPB calls the sixth prakritic, we are going beyond our Atmic (earthly) plane, therefore the Monad has to be higher than that. It repeats itself up to the fourth prakritic plane, where the Globe G is. From that we could infer that the real Monad has to be on the third prakritic plane, or at least, on the higher fourth.
What do you, or anybody, think about this up to this point?

Pablo,

I found this graphic of the seven basic levels:



http://www.kheper.net/topics/Theosophy/HPB-planes.html

I also found this graphic of the interpenetrating levels:



http://www.kheper.net/topics/Theosophy/HPB-planes.html

Are these the levels you are talking about?

Yes, those are the levels I'm talking about

Pablo,

I am still trying to reconcile the two different lists of Levels. Barborka and Leadbeater use the classic Levels (Adi, Anupapadaka, Atman, Buddhi, Mental, Astral, and Physical). I noticed that HPB has never used this list-of-seven in her writings. Why is that? Are the two systems reconcileable? How is it we have ended up with two different lists?

Hi Nick

HPB gave those seven planes to the Esoteric school, therefore she considered that information as secret. Why? Because it is dangerous, as can be seen in a note by AB and WQJ (CW 12, pp. 678-9):

I think to accuse Besant of having invented planes is nonsensical. She was in charge of recording the teachings in the Inner Group. She was completely acquainted with the now published ‘esoteric’ teachings of HPB, and presumably (as the former note shows) she was aware of the reasons for those teachings to be secret. Therefore, when she decides to put forward a different classification, I’m sure there is a reason behind that. Either that classification is good enough to understand things without risk, or it has a hidden clue to the ‘real’ classification of the planes.
For the last two years I’ve been working in a classification of planes that may reconcile both systems, as well as many of the inconsistencies in HPB’s explanations regarding that subject. After many frustrations I think I’m arriving to something relatively accurate. But I have still to work on it. It is not yet fully developed, and I don’t know if it will finally be good.

Pablo,

You said,

"...she was aware of the reasons for those teachings to be secret."

--> It is frustrating to think that our ability to learn about the Planes is blocked by a need to keep such teachings secret. Hopefully, the need for such secrecy has disappeared over the last 100 years.

"For the last two years I’ve been working in a classification of planes that may reconcile both systems...."

--> Wonderful!

"It is not yet fully developed, and I don’t know if it will finally be good."

--> Please do not worry about that. What have you found out so far?

Nick,

You said:

I think there is a common misunderstanding regarding secrecy. If we reflect upon the quote I gave in my previous post, we can see that the reason for secrecy is the danger that certain teachings may involve.

“The danger lies in the possibility of evoking entities far too powerful and unspiritual...”

I don’t think that can change merely because 100 years have passed, because that is fact of nature. The only way to change that is to develop our spirituality as to be able to deal with the consequences of the working on occult matters. I can give another example. HPB said:

In both quotes it is said that even the mere study of certain matters (we know thoughts are things) will produce unconsciously to the student certain undesirable results. Therefore, the secrecy is a protection, it is not to give a gun to a child, no matter how much the child may want to play with it.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to figure things out. I think The Secret Doctrine was written in certain way as to leave gaps, so the student may work on them and thus develop his intuition. But if there is something we shouldn’t know, the information given on that matter will be misleading (as HPB and the Mahatmas frequently said), a veil, so we cannot figure out the truth. We have to remember that most of this information was given in the past after the first initiation, so we cannot expect the real teachings to be published. I think the SD is more a training than a source of information (and our course at Olcott is based on that thesis). Although there is a lot of useful information there, many things are veiled. Information is of secondary importance. HPB’s words recorded in How to Study Theosophy clearly point out in that direction.

Pablo,

This brings us to this question. If you were teaching a class on beginning Theosophy, and you stepped up to the blackboard to write out the seven Planes, which Planes would you write?

The classic list:

1. Adi
2. Anupapadaka
3. Atman (Nirvana)
4. Buddhi
5. Mental (Manas)
6. Astral
7. Physical

The HPB list:

I. Objective Consciousness (1a. Physical dense subplanes)
II. Astral Instinctual Consciousness (1b. Physical etheric subplanes)
III. Kâma-Prânic Consciousness (2. Emotional plane)
IV. Kâma-Mânasic Consciousness. (3a. Lower Mental subplanes)
V. Mânasic Consciousness (3b. Higher Mental subplanes)
VI. Buddhic Consciousness (4. Buddhic plane)
VII. Para-Ego or Atma (5. Atmic or Nirvanic plane)

Or would you not give out any list?

Nick,

Unless I'm presenting something specifically related to HPB's teachings, I usually write the "classic list" of planes, because I think they are more accurate from a "material" point of view, and then I explain the different states of consciousness that manifests on those planes, as HPB has them.
I don't use the esoteric explanation (prakritic planes, etc) unless I'm explaining something related to the SD.

H.P.B. and latter Theosphists have indicated that the various charting methods are all correct depending upon the perspectives or aspects one was interested in. None could accomplish all things.

Such makes sense to me.
ChristianMyst

According to [neo-]Platonism Leadbeater was not in error that much if at all. [Systems of] forms are the highest existences, and each (even a system) is unique. One might say he was in error about the definition of conscious monads, but there are other types of monads--units or unities, including 'the absolute' unity itself, and so where do you draw the line between monad types?

I would not write a transliterated planes list, but a non-Greek-based English one. Let people learn [m]any transliteration[s] they want on their own. I am a philhellene, but people are more familiar with other English terms. The such term for the 3 highest planes is '[adjective-]spiritual,' though you could separate material and ethereal as principles for planes and leave spirit simply dual divine & human as the two highest planes. However, I would argue materialism is just as dangerous, and that exoteric implication humans are the highest beings next to Deity is also quite dangerous indeed due to its tendency to cause arrogance, likely even more dangerous when mixed with exoterism in religion or [meta]physics (I consider exoterism slightly worse than esoterism though not everyone may always, for good reasons.)

I think the idea of planes and principles therein or in man clears up materialist and sectarian thinking, especially the misconception that there is no life consciousness (exoteric biology,) and that humanity is highest (exoteric religion.) If one were to write them on a board they should probably write both lists, though it may also be good to clarify that material-ethereal is not two separate principles in physics-mathematics dimensions, yet also that Logos-monad-pneuma separately is not more spiritual consciousness one should lust to attain control of, but divine Deity & angelic/devic consciousness greater than us except for our undifferentiated individual consciousness: actually 'ye are gods,' but '[one must 'learn earthly things 1st,]' including that Logos incarnates in everyone though thus we are also less than Logos.

--Bro. David