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

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#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.

#50

So why would you follow something whose success rate ranges from zero to none? Stick with yoga. It’s been successful for several thousand years.

#51

Yoga was almost a total failure as well. Very few in India did practice Yoga. It was not viewed with good eyes. Only in the XX Century the interest in Yoga in India increased, specially after the success it had in the West, specially after the hippies and later the 80?s and 90?s, when it was discovered as an excelent method of physical training. Of course the interest in Yoga today is much more as a physical exercise method than a method to achieve Moksha - the final liberation from the cicle of incarnations.

If a Spiritual teaching fails in its purpose of instructing mankind, it doesn?t necessarely mean that the teaching is bad. It may mean that the interest in them doesn?t exist. In present, people are much more interested in the benefits that material Science can provide that in the benefits of Spiritual teachings.

#52

Yoga is good as Practice but poor in Theory. These movements I?ve mentioned above are good in Theory but poor in Practice. A marriage between both is the best in my opinion.

#53

Yoga was almost a total failure as well. Very few in India did practice Yoga.

Don’t know where you come from, but your information differs from my personal experience. That India went through dark times is not a failure of Yoga. Several things happened. First and foremost, Yoga philosophy is ingrained in the “sva-dharma” (way of living) of many Indian households. Elderly people practicing asanas and meditation has been a very routine scene, though devoid of the glamor of the West. Asanas like sun salutations used to be performed school-wide as a part of general curriculum. During the time you mention, more people turned to ritualistic worship that got greater visibility, that’s all. Secondly, India has always been secular in thinking; a home to extremely diverse schools. So, many people integrated Yoga with their spiritual pursuits in a variety of ways. It made it difficult to identify ‘one’ Yoga that prevailed.

It is true that with modern economic revolution in India, there is an import of Western life-style as a symbol of material progress and a more stylized Yoga is seen flourishing. But it is predominantly in the urban pockets which have become cultural mirrors of the West, and not at all representative of Yoga the way it has always existed in India.

I know several Yoga masters in my hometown alone, who do not wear orange robes or convene mega-assemblies of disciples. That’s for the Western theatre and the entertainers are different. Yoga and its contemporary philosophies are also in pretty good shape. The flip side of the British manipulation of Vedic knowledge was that centers of Vedic studies were established in almost each University in India. Today, they are doing good work by cleansing the English knowledge of the British slant and also reinterpreting some of the old scriptures like Yoga Sutra with deeper understanding of Sanskrit writings.

In a typical Indian mindset, greater importance is given to the self-exerienced knowledge than punditry or play of words. Divergent views emerging from experiential knowledge makes any philosophy richer, not poorer.

#54

Yoga has been practiced by yogis for thousands of years. Yogis have always been on the fringes of society, though highly regarded. Yoga is a tried and tested science, even modern science has validated it. It works. There is no need to worry about theory, one simply does the Yogic practices and sees for themselves. But that is not to say that Yoga has no theory or is poor in theory, there is of course a theory underpinning Yoga and that is Samkhya. However, Yoga presupposes that one already has a grounding in the theory, hence why the first sutra of the Yogasutras begins as, "Now, the science of Yoga is explained’

Why is it important to know Samkhya before one begins their Yoga practice? It is important because it gives one intellectual conviction that the science of Yoga is required to reach liberation. Samkhya explains basically the human condition of suffering, why there is suffering and how this suffering can be ended.(Similar to Buddhism) This suffering can be ended if we are able to discirminate between the observer and the observed(purusha and prakriti) When we realise that we have become falsely identified with the observed, much like a spectator becomes falsely identified with a drama and then reacts to the drama. This identification we have made with the observed is so deeply entrenched that we do not realise how much we are enmeshed in the body - locked down in this world. It is layers and layers of coverings - a deeply entangled web of ignorance. The purpose for evolution of the universe is for us to break free of this entanglement. The universe is working towards this purpose only. When the human evolves the opportunity comes to break free. How? To become a deatched observer of the observed to reverse the process of entanglement. This is the goal of Yoga, as described YS Sutra 2-3, to cease all the modifications so that the observer is revealed.

But ask yourself how difficult is it to become a detached observer of reality? Everytime you make an attempt to be a detached observer what do you find yourself doing? In most cases the answer is we judge and react, entangling ourselves even further. To survive in the world we have tell lies, accumulate wealth and power, step on other people and all of this is counterproductive to our aim of being a detached observer. In practice it is near impossible for most people to achieive this. This is why Yoga was developed as a systematic science that will enable us achieive this goal by practicing the 8 limbs to ensure we remain on track. Thus Yoga is really the practical limb of Samkhya.

#55

@Egyptian

I used to be into some of that stuff that you’re into, but I have some real serious doubts about it. You should look into yoga a little more. There’s quite a bit more ‘theory’ than you’re apparently aware of. I’m a purist myself - totally against mixing things up. You only wind up creating a lot of misconceptions and confusion, a mishmash of stuff, none of which is authentic.

#56

At one time this was a fairly well-focused thread. If you guys want to chit chat you should start a new one.

#57

Good rude suggestion, let?s return to the original theme of this thread. We may discuss the other themes in another occasion, in order to do not get this thread diluted. I?ve posted what I consider the best classification of the bodies of man. Ladies and gentlemen please expound yours. Thank you.

#58

This is the link to the chart The Constitution of Man, from the book A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, by Alice Bailey.

Note that in this chart the Monad is the ultimate being, which conflicts with the Upanishads that places two more levels after Atma, namely The Unmanifested and Purusha.

However, Theosophical teachings mention the root of the Monad as dwelling in the Divine or Adi Plane, therefore matching the Upanishads classification. The root of the Monad would be the Purusha thus.

A Treatise on Cosmic Fire
Chart - The Constitution of Man

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienciareal/cosmicfire/fire1057.html

#59

“Whilst the roots of their life are in the Adi plane, the Monads themselves dwell on the Anupadaka plane, as yet without vehicles in which …”

The Causal Body and the Ego, Arthur E. Powell

#60

I beg your pardon. My suggestion was not rude. You only create a lot of misconception, confusion, and a mishmash of stuff, none of which is authentic. Now [I]that[/I] was rude.
Maybe it will help to review the original post.

[QUOTE=KosmoLeo;67992]Hi

I am pretty novice at yoga’s philosophical teachings and I seem to keep reading contradictory teachings on how many bodies a person has, with some teachers saying 3, some 7 and some as many as 10. So can anyone with authoritative knowledge please lend some clarity, how many bodies does a human being actually have, [B]according to yoga’s traditional teachings[/B], and please explain a little what is the breakdown of them, thx. :cool:[/QUOTE]

I think it’s quite rude of you to use this thread to expound your particular brand of nitwitism, when clearly that is what the original poster was complaining about. He asked for clarification of [I]traditional yoga teachings[/I].