How many bodies do we have, really...?

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#30

According to Theosophy and Alice Bailey, the Physical Body is thus composed:

Dense part

Composed by matter from the three lower sub-planes of Physical Plane: Solid, Liquid, Gaseous.
This is the part we see, and can be studied in Anatomy and Physiology books.

Etheric part

Composed by matter from the four higher sub-planes of Physical Plane: Etheric, Super-Etheric, Sub-Atomic, Atomic.
The Permanent Physical Atom is located in the Atomic sub-plane, and it is the Atom which forms the next body in the next incarnation, according to its evolution and the individual Karma.
Every evolutive effort related to the Physical Body is engraved in this Atom, and forms the basis of the new physical body in the next incarnation.

This part Etheric of the Physical Body is not visible, except if one have Physical Clairvoyance developed, an Yoga Siddhi.

In this Etheric part is located the Chacras and the Acupuncture Meridians.
When the death of the Physical Body occurs, this Etheric part is dissolved as well, and only the Physical Body Permanent Atom goes to the Causal Body, also called Higher Mental Body.

#31

The Astral Body, or Emotional Body, called Kama in Hindu literature, is located in the Astral Plane, and it is the lowest body the Monad have after the death of the Physical Body. It is identical to the Physical Body, since the Physical is a perfect copy of the Astral Body.
There are reports in Spiritualism literature of people who dies and don?t perceive that are dead, since everything continues as usual. The person is then only with the Astral Body.
Many may have had experiences at night of dreams when see oneself sleeping on the bed, or vivid dreams. This is what is called Astral Projection, or Astral Journey.

#32

It’s this kind of stuff that we’re trying to weed out here. The original question was concerned with what are the traditional yoga teachings on the matter. I think we’ve established that the traditional teachings consist of the koshas, from the Upanishads, and the subtle body.

#33

It doesn?t seem to me a wise thing to weed out teachings which clarifies traditional yoga teachings on the matter, often confuse and incomplete.

#34

It gets confusing when you try to tally the different descriptions of the bodies to each other, especially cross-cultural descriptions. Each system has classified them differently, but the idea is generally the same.

The Samkhya system of the subtle body is also explained like this in Vedanta:

5 elements = Gross body
5 subtle elements, 5 sense organs, 5 action organs, mind, ego, intellect = Subtle body
chitta(storehouse of memories) = Causal body

The Theosophical system is confusing, because basically it is a synthesis of the Upanishadic koshas, Samkhya subtle body and Western esotericism(Kabbalah etc)

#35

I think that a most useful thing to do when studying spiritual teachings from different cultures is try to correlate one to another. That was the central purpose of Theosophy, but they have failed to some extant, and became centered in Hindu teachings.
Alice Bailey later mended a bit the situation, clarifying a little more the Hindu teachings, and relating them to Christian Mysticism.

In the time of the Hermetic Order of Golden Dawn, an attempt was made to elaborate a table of correspondences between the different systems, and Aleister Crowley developed it a little more and named it the book 777. However, it is a much flawed table of correspondences, but the intent was good and gave the example of what should be done.

If people of different cultures are describing the same object there are no reason for much discrepancies. For example, an Anatomy Atlas issued in Japan will not be much different from one issued in U.S. since the physical body of a japanese is identical to an american, except a few details in eye shape, etc.

The same applies to the bodies of man, there is no reason for great discrepancies between the several cultures, if all are at the same basic level of understanding of the matter.

Let?s make an attempt to correlate the Five Koshas teachings with Theosophy, which by the way is basically Hindu as well.

Samkhya…Theosophy

Physical - Annamaya kosha…Physical Body - Dense part

Energy - Pranamaya kosha…Physical Body - Etheric part

Mental - Manamaya kosha …Astral Body and Concrete (Lower) Mental Body

Wisdom - Vijnanamaya kosha…Bhuddi

Bliss - Anandamaya kosha…Abstract (Higher) Mental Body or Causal Body

It seems that Samkhya places Anandamaya as the most interior of the koshas while Theosophy places Bhuddi as the most interior. This is something so be clarified but I prefer Theosophy classification, which we must remember is based in Hindu Classics as well.

Thus these are the five koshas or sheats which envelops the Atman, the Self, according to Samkhya. We may see that a correspondence is perfectly possilbe.

Atman according to Samkhya thus is the Self. It is not, according to the Upanishads. But this is another story.

#36

Yeah, there is nothing wrong with the above classification either. It corresponds more or less neatly. The only part that I find confusing is the difference between the etheric double and the astral body?

Anandamaya kosha has already been confusing to me. It is called the bliss-body because it is the body which is closest to the Atman(in Samkhya terminology: purusha) which is experienced in deep meditation as satchitananda(truth, bliss, consciousness) the bliss-body is characterized by those qualities. However, it still is not-self, for the self has no attributes or qualities. The bliss-body is basically the highest state of phenomenal and individual existence before one attains unity with the Atman. I think it corresponds more neatly with the notion of ‘higher self’

Atman and higher self are not the same, because while the atman is the the universal self, the higher self is an individual self. In Vedanta terminology the higher self is Jivatman. According to Advaita Vedanta the jivatman is identical with the atman, but other schools of Vedanta maintain there is some difference.

#37

What’s wrong with the above classification is that it confuses the Vedanta theory of Koshas with Samkhya. Although Swami Krishnananda did explain the koshas in terms of Samkhya, it isn’t a Samkhya teaching. Regarding Anandamaya kosha, there is no correspondence to any Samkhya principle. This is a Vedanta teaching for which there is no counterpart in Samkhya.

#38

The Tantrik system has its own classification with the 6, 7 or 8 chakra system, only there is slight difference here, in that the chakras are actually physically located in the body, whereas the koshas are conceptualized as layers outside of the body. Nonetheless, there are correspondences between the koshas and the chakras:

Mooladhara Chakra/Root Chakra corresponds to the Physical body
Swadhistana chakra/Sexual Chakra corresponds to the Physical body and the Energy body
Manipura Chakra/Solar Plexus Chakraa corresponds to the Energy body
Anahata Chakra/Heart Chakra corresponds to the Energy body and the Mental body
Vishuddha chakra/Throat Chakra corresponds to the Mental body
Ajnana Chakra/Third eye chakra corresponds to the Mental body and the Intellectual body
Sahasara Chakra/Crown chakra corresponds to the Intellectual body and the Bliss body

They also categorized in terms of elements:

Root Chakra = Earth
Sexual Chakra = Water
Solar Plexus Chakra = Fire
Heart Chakra = Air
Throat Chakra = Ether
Third Eye chakra = Mind
Crown Chakra = Intellect(Higher Mind)

#39

This is from the same guy who gave us 7*7 = 49 layers of vibrational density. The chakra system is a completely different metaphysical system. There is no real comparison.

#40

Just to make a practical point about this ‘body’ business. All the above may seem theoretical or just fancy metaphysics, but it has a very practical application. A point that was explained to me in India by Vedanta teachers. I will share this with the fellow Yoga forum members. If we look at the most basic Samkhya model:

5 physical elements = Gross body
5 subtle elements, 5 sense organs, 5 action organs, mind, ego, intellect = Subtle body
Chitta/Storehouse of memories = Causal body

You will realise that the only elements which are distinctive to the physical body are the physical elements. Ironically, the sense organs and the motor organs are not included in the gross body. This was surprising to me the first time, for you would think the physical body includes the the sensory and physiological system. In actual fact, the sensory and physiological system does not reside in the physical body, but in the subtle body. Think about it. In the process of seeing, the physical eye is what is capturing the signals, but it is not the one seeing, the seeing only takes place after the signal has been received, processed and then projected to the seeing faculty within us. When that seeing faculty is not present within us, even if the eye is still receiving signals, seeing does not take place.

Similarly, the motor organs may seem to be located in the body, but actually the body cannot move without the agentive part within us giving it instruction. This may seem unusual for surely our breathing etc does not depend upon our instruction. No, not conscious instruction, but unconscious instruction. However, we can give conscious instruction and change the breathing or indeed any part of our physiology.

In other words the sentient and agentive part of us is not within the physical body. It is this part of us which is sensing and doing everything. When you realise this you will realize that you are not the physical body intellectually, but you will also realise the practical means to shift out of the physical body into your subtle body. How? Again look at the Samkhya model you will notice that the sensing and motor aspect is not within the physical body, therefore by simply focussing on the sensing and motor aspect you can shift your awareness into the subtle body. It is based on this understanding that Yoga techniques have been created.
When you do any Yoga exercise you bring your awareness to bear on your sensing and motor functions, the more acute your awareness of the senso-motor functions, the more you begn to shift out of body consciousness to your subtle body. Try it and you will see it works everytime. For instance simply focus on your breathing and become acutely aware of it, you will find after a while you will begin to shift out of body consciousness. You may also focus on a sound, a feeling or a visualization - whatever you find more interesting.
A more powerful technique is to change your body perception. Normally, we are so identified with the space of our body, even when we are doing Yoga we are aware of the outline of our body. This keeps us locked in body consciousness. Instead, trying visualizing that the space you are occupying is expanding outside of the body. Feel that your senses are going beyond the body(They are not limited by space and time, as your body is) As you do this, your awareness is the process of shifting outside of its habitual body-space into the expanded space you are visualizing.
An alternative technique is to visualize yourself sitting somewhere else and then trying to sense those surroundings. Initially, your imagination will create this image , but the more acutely you can maintain it, the more your actual consciousness will begin to shift to that space.

These are very powerful techniques I am sharing with you which if practiced regularly with strong focus will cause you to project into your subtle body.

#41

We can see that the confusion about this simple subject - the bodies of man - has not begun with Theosophy, but always has been present in Hindu Classics. It is amazing that with so many sages none was able to explain clearly the matter. Things became clear to me only after reading C.W. Leadbeater and Alice Bailey books. Blavatsky made a tremendous mess about the subject.

About the difference between the etheric double and the astral body, it is very easy.
The Etheric Double is the Etheric part of the Physical Body. It is located in the Physical Plane.
The Astral Body, or Emotional Body, or Kama-Rupa (Kama=Desire)(Rupa=Form) is located in the Astral Plane, or Emotional Plane, or Kama-Loka (Loka=Place)
It is the plane above the Physical Plane, where people go when die.

From Wikipedia:

Kama

Kama in HinduismIn Hinduism, kāma is regarded as the third of the four goals of life (purusharthas, the others being duty (dharma), worldly status (artha) and salvation (moksha).[3][4] Kama-deva is the personification of this. Kama-rupa is a subtle body or aura composed of desire, while Kama-loka is the realm this inhabits, particularly in the afterlife. In the context of the four goals of life, kāma refers to mental and intellectual fulfillment in accordance to dharma.[5]

Theosophy: kama, kamarupa and kamalokaIn the Theosophy of Blavatsky, Kama is the fourth principle of the septenary, associated with emotions and desires, attachment to existence, volition, and lust.[9]

Kamaloka is a semi-material plane, subjective and invisible to humans, where disembodied “personalities[B]”, the astral forms, called Kama-rupa remain until they fade out from it by the complete exhaustion of the effects of the mental impulses that created these eidolons of human [/B]and animal passions and desires. It is associated with Hades of ancient Greeks and the Amenti of the Egyptians, the land of Silent Shadows; a division of the first group of the Trail?kya.

#42

I don’t agree that the Hindu classics are confused on the matter. If you can read the Sanskrit classics and good English translations of them, you will find the opposite is true: they are very precise with their terms. I have read over 50 of the Sanskrit classics in Vedanta and nothing really compares when it comes to clarity in explaining spiritual matters. This is why Vedanta is sometimes defined as,‘Growing clarity about reality’

In Sanskrit there is no problem and ambiguity when it comes to terms. The problems start in English because English lacks the vocabulary and grammar to precisely pin down certain spiritual terms like. Like the term ‘prana’ gets translated as life-energy or vital energy, and this can be confusing because it makes one think prana is just another kind of energy like heat, electricity or magnetism. If you can read the Sanskrit you will instantly know what prana is. It comes from pra+anna, meaning before matter. Thus prana is the state matter exists in prior to it manifesting as matter. The closest parallel to prana is in science, ‘quantum’.

In Sanskrit there are about 50 terms to describe consciousness and mental states, this is missing in English. So this is why there is a lot of confusion in modern spiritual literature which is often in English. The terms in English are often not precise enough and Sanskrit translations are often poorly translated. This is why Theosophy has suffered so much and died down. Today, Theosophy is a very small movement and is fast losing members and direction. I am actually a member of the Theosophical Lodge and have broached this topic at the AGM. My friend who is the president of the local lodge agrees that the main problem in Theosophy is that the terminology they use is very confusing.

I have had countless debates with friends of mine from Western occultist traditions like the Golden Dawn/Heremetic order on the structure of the bodies because of confusions arising from the usage of terms, like say, ‘astral’

#43

A commentary upon Atman, the Unmanifested, Purusha.
These Upanishads are a jewel of great clarity.

The Upanishads
translated by Max M?ller
Part II
(Sacred Books of the East, Volume 15)
[1884]

Katha-Upanishad

THIRD VALL?

  1. ‘Beyond the senses there are the objects, beyond the objects there is the mind, beyond the mind there is the intellect, the Great Self is beyond the intellect.’

  2. ‘Beyond the Great there is the Undeveloped, beyond the Undeveloped there is the Person (purusha). Beyond the Person there is nothing–this is the goal, the highest road.’
    …
    SIXTH VALL?.

  3. ‘Beyond. the senses is the mind, beyond the mind is the highest (created) Being 3, higher than that Being is the Great Self, higher than the Great, the highest Undeveloped.’

  4. ‘Beyond the Undeveloped is the Person, the all-pervading and entirely imperceptible. Every creature that knows him is liberated, and obtains immortality.’

This Max Muller translation isn?t much satisfactory, I will make a quick translation from a book I have in Portuguese into English, more clear.

Katha-Upanishad

THIRD VALL?

  1. 'Beyond the senses there are the objects, beyond the objects there is the mind (Manas), beyond the mind(Manas) there is the intellect (Buddhi).

  2. ‘Beyond the intellect(Buddhi) there is the Powerful Atman; beyond the Powerful Atman is the Unmanifested, beyond the Unmanifested there is the Purusha (person). Beyond the Purusha there is nothing–this is the final, the Supreme Goal.’
    …
    SIXTH VALL?.

  3. ‘Beyond. the senses is the mind, beyond the mind is the intelect, above the intelect is the Great Atman, beyond the Great Atman is the Unmanifested.’

  4. ‘Beyond the Unmanifested is the Purusha, the all-pervading and unperishable. When achieved, the incarnated creature is liberated, and achieves immortality.’

Therefore this is the complete list of the seven bodies of the man:

Purusha (The Divine Spark)
Unmanifested (Monad)
Atman
Buddhi
Manas {Higher Manas and Lower Manas
Astral Body
Physical Body {Etheric part and Dense Part

#44

The Upanishads are supremely confusing for clarity. This is why in Vedanta they are read with the aid of the Brahma Sutras by Badaryana. Also, before reading them the Prakaranas(introductory texts) by Vedanta teachers like Sankarcharya etc are read, such as the Vivekchudamani, Panchadasi, Vedanta Sara, Atma-Bodha, Tattva-Bodha, Upadesha Sahsari, Astavarka Samhita, Jeeva-Yatara etc

There is a system in Vedanta for reading Vedanta literature. You begin by reading the commentaries by modern gurus like Swami Dayananda and Swami Chinyamananda. Then you read the prakaranas, then the Gita, then the Upanishads and then the Brahama Sutras. In this process of reading your clarity begins to grow and grow. Until, eventually you reach a satori like enlightenment. This is the Jnana-marga(knowledge path)

#45

Just wanted to add I much prefer the Yogic literature to the Vedanta literature, because the Vedanta literature is usually purely theoretical. It turns too academic and formal and many people on the Jnana path end up become obsessed with knowledge and scripture. Apparently, this path can lead to enlightenment, but I fail to see it personally. I also have problems with Zen, and the Vedanta path is similar to Zen.

Vedanta basically evolved from Samkhya, and hence why Vedanta texts include Samkhya, but interpret it Vedantic terms. Many scholars had a problem with the dualistic and atheistic classical Samkhya, and sought to reconcile these problems with Vedanta. I personally see Vedanta as a more logically consistent Samkhya. Then again my own readings of Samkhya text has found no real inconsistencies with Vedanta.

The path of Yoga/Tantra is very practical. You read the instructions for the exercises, go and do the exercises as prescribed and measure the results. Adjust as accordingly until you can get the techniques to work for you. All that is required on the Yoga/tantrik path is to constantly be aware of your mind and body. Observe how your mind-body is reacting with the exercises and in response to the stimuli in the world. I still think the Yogasutras is the definitive and must-have text for any spiritual aspirant. The Hathayoga Pradapika, Shiva Samhita, Gherenda Samhita are good supplementary texts to fill in the details that the Yogasutras omits.

The Tantra texts are a mixed bag. They all involve ritual, magik and temple practices and more suited to the ritualistic mindset, not to the scientific mindset.

#46

Yes, I agree that Hindu Classics are very clear about spiritual matters, I was refering specifically about this subject, the bodies of man, albeit the theme is treated in great depth in its parts, if I am not mistaken nowhere is found a summary like that I?ve posted above.

About English translations, indeed, there is a problem, but it seems that more recent translations are correcting this problem, keeping technical terms like Atman, Prana, Manas, Buddhi, Purusha, in the original. This improved the translations.

About confusion with Astral Body, it is a so simple matter, it shouldn?t be a problem.
Early Theosophy indeed made a big mess about the subject, but it was clarified later, with the works of Annie Besant, Leadbeater and specially Alice Bailey.

About Western occultist traditions, like the defunct Golden Dawn - all they are fake and have not delivery what promissed - Initiation.
Much better a solitary Yoga practice than to be a member of a fake Initiatic Order.

Interesting to know that you are a member of the Theosophical Society, it seems to be a good group. Yes, I heard that it is shrinking, T.S is flawed from the beginning, battle of egos, pride, egoism, instead of real love for Wisdom, I think that this was the reason for its failure, by what I have read about its history.
Moreover it became stuck on Blavatsky, and Blavatsky knew little about what she was talking about, and made a tremendous confusion.

#47

Another Theosophy mistake, it did praise Patanjali Yoga Sutras but rejected Asana and Pranayama, which is the basis of the system.

#48

I quite like the theosophical system(although the 7 rays business goes over the top) I think I can understand it better than most theosophists, because of my grounding in Vedanta and Samkhya. They are often complaining about the Sanskrit terms though, and request glossaries or simply turn away disgusted at the Sanskrit. I can’t say I blame them when I tried to study Vedanta at traditional Vedanta ashrams even I was disgusted at the obsession with Sanskrit and the vanity and ego of the Sanskrit speaking Vedanta mahatamas. They are preserving the tradition as something exclusive and sacredotal. There is of course historical pretext to this, as the Brahmins preserved the Vedas in the Sanskrit and forbade non-Brahmins from its study, but in this information age(age of Aquarias as per Theosophists) this is no longer required.

What we require in this age is a more objective, universal and impartial language not specific to any culture - that is according to me the language of modern science. All of the Sanskrit terms can be substituted for modern scientific language. For instance ‘prana’ is better understood as quantum. Chakras and Nadic which are pranic structures can be understood as quantum systems which have manifest effects in the endorcrine system. Meditation can be understood as mental phenomenology. Waking, Dreaming and Deep sleep states can be understood as Mental Focus levels(Monroe classification) or the popular classification in terms of brain waves(Beta, Alpha, Delta, Theta) Ida and Pingala Nadis can be understood as the Sympathetic and Parasympathetic nervous system and the Right and Left brain hemispheres.

What we must stand clear of is using esoteric language like solar/lunar, astral, higher self, subtle, causal, god because this confuses and alienates many people. In this age of information spirituality has to reach the masses, it can longer be the luxury of some initate order.

#49

Indeed, with the dawn of the Age of Aquarius (which has not arrived yet as many think, but this is another story) the Great White Brotherhood decided to make public what had been keep secret in the past in the field of Spiritual teachings. The Theosophical Society was one of the first attempts, later they have created another movements such as Agni Yoga Society, Alice Bailey, I Am Activity, Bridge to Freedom, Summit Lighthouse and other less known.
The degree of success varied from miserable failure to total failure.

All these movements don?t use Sanskrit terms, or use just a few, and people don?t have interest in them either, therefore I don?t think that the problem is the use of Sanskrit. I think that keeping the Sanskrit for the technical terms is good, at most using some consacrated terms by early and frequent usage, such as Astral Body instead of Kama-Rupa. If we begin to change much the traditional terms, soon none will know what the writer is trying to tell.

About the Seven Rays, I think that Theosophy dealt only superficially with this crucial subject, Tibetan ( Master Djwal Khul ) says in Alice Bailey works that the time was not ripe then, and the extensive teachings about them came later through Alice Bailey, which most Theosophists reject.