[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Main Index][Thread Index]

# New guy with the usual dumb questions

#### Message 02932 of 3835

- To: BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: New guy with the usual dumb questions
- From: Jwingate2002@...
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:03:28 EDT

    Hi everyone, I'm Jason Wingate, I'm new to all this, and I need some help
    owing to contradictory ideas and terminologies about Bardon's work that I keep
    encountering online. Maybe the problems stem from multiple translations of the
    original text he wrote, but having set myself to truly understand the
    theoretical section of IIH on a deep level I discovered some commentaries on it
    by
    its French translator, Alexandre Moryason, which seem to contradict Bardon -
    or at least complicate him.

    In his commentary, Moryason says that the planes from densest upward are: 0)
    Physical, 1) Etheric Body, 2) Astral or Psychical Body, 3) Mental Body
    (divided into lower or concrete mental and higher mental or Causal, Egoic body,
    soul) (!!!?!?!), 4) The Buddhic Body, 5)The Atmic Body, 6) The Monad, 7) The
    Primary Divine Spark: Adi.

    Phew! All this learnedness is 'explanation through obfuscation' to me - and
    thus accomplishes the precise opposite of what Bardon intended his work to do!

    1stly, is this correct and what does it *mean*? I can tell that Moryason has
    quite a leaning towards the Asian systems and the terms from 4 onward mean
    nothing whatsoever to me, nor does Bardon mention them that I can discover.

    2ndly, in the hope of integrating the terminologies of Taoist systems with
    which I'm a bit familiar... is the 'etheric body', which I associate with what
    Bardon calls the 'astral matrix' (holds our astral to our physical bodies)
    the same as the system of routes and channels, the acupuncture meridians and
    other more psychic energy orbits in the body, that the Taoists meditate upon?

    3rdly, if the etheric plane is closer to ours than the astral why doesn't
    Bardon mention it?

    4thly and finally, I'm going to try and read every past post on this group
    but this will take me approximately 100 days! So in the meanwhile, in an early
    post Mr Clark mentioned that the mental sphere is the origin of magic. I was
    wondering if this could be expanded upon a little? Is it a question of its
    being the place of imagination? I think I understand this on an intuitive level
    but cannot quite express it well...

    Many thanks to everyone for bearing with me! I hope to be less of a nuisance
    hereafter.... best wishes, Jason. And PS thanks to everyone from God
    downwards who made Bardon's books possible.

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

- Follow-Ups:
  - Re: New guy with the usual dumb questions
    - From: "Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@...>

- Prev by Date: Fw: Welcome to BardonPraxis
- Next by Date: RE: Sound of Light?
- Previous by thread: RE: Sound of Light?
- Next by thread: Re: New guy with the usual dumb questions
- Indexes:
  - Main
  - Thread

Main Index | Thread Index