Hi all,

Recently there was a seminar at the International Theosophical Centre in Naarden on reincarnation, led by John Algeo. The main question was: is there reincarnation and if so: what is it that reincarnates. John went into evidence for reincarnation (near death experience and kids that remember past lives) as well as the Buddhist theories on the subject and what Krishnamurti had to say.

The main conclusion seemed to be: karma (the skandhas) reincarnates, but whether a sort of personal higher Self-like something reincarnates: we don't know.
John's conclusion was as I understood it: the Higher Self is so impersonal that in each incarnation a new ray of the eternal shines into the new vehicle (including the skandhas) and makes use of that set of circumstances to learn and work (and create new skandhas).

Personally I feel that there is evidence that learning happens between lives and I don't feel that the skandhas are appropriate vehicles for that learning - this leads to the conclusion that theosphists have often come to: there is a Higher Self that (though impersonal) is personal enough to reincarnate.

The text from Krishnamurti that John based his talks on to a large extent and that provided the theme for the week is online at: Krishnamurti on death and reincarnation [a conversation following the death of John Fields]

I do hope this wasn't too much, too deep for a first post in a new forum...
Katinka

kh7,

You asked,

"The main question was: is there reincarnation and if so: what is it that reincarnates...."

--> HPB, in her book, The Key to Theosophy, uses the phrase "reincarnating Ego" on pages 28, 68, 103, 115, 135, 163.

http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm

My understanding of the reincarnating Ego is that it is our Atma-Buddha-manas. Take a look at C. Jinarajadasa's The First Principles of Theosophy, page 166

http://www3.igalaxy.net/~nick/theosophy/fp-148.htm#166

Look for the phrase "The Reincarnating Ego" just to the right of the center of the diagram on page 166. (The diagram shows the reincarnating Ego as being the threse aspects, Atma-Buddhi-Manas.)

Annine Besant seems to say it is the Causal Body that reincarnates.

"... Karana Sharira, or causal body. It is the “body of Manas” that lasts through the whole life of the reincarnating soul. It lasts from life to life, carrying on the result of each to the next. Therefore is it called the causal body, because in this body there are the causes which unfold themselves into effects on the lower planes of earthly life."

Annie Besant, The Path of Discipleship, paragraph 89
http://www.anandgholap.net/Path_Of_Discipleship-AB.htm

However, it seems (to me) that the Causal Body is only a manifestation of the reincarnating Ego, as mentioned in the HPB quotes above.

You said,

"The main conclusion seemed to be: karma (the skandhas) reincarnates...."

--> My reaction would be that karma controls reincarnation, not that it is the object that reincarnates:


"ENQUIRER. And what is it that regulates the duration, or special qualities of these incarnations?

THEOSOPHIST. Karma, the universal law of retributive justice."

The Key to Theosophy
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm
page 198

However, I admit I need to have a better understanding of the word "skandas". (That is my homework for the next few days....)

You said,

"Personally I feel that there is evidence that learning happens between lives and I don't feel that the skandhas are appropriate vehicles for that learning...."

--> I have heard that the final pieces of karma can be burned off in an after-death state, which allows Nirvana to sometime be achieved after death has occured. (I had always assumed that Enlightment could only be achieved while alive, but I am not so sure any more.) I will look for that quote and see if I can find it.

Thanks for the Krishnamurti link. I will take a look at it.

You said,

"I do hope this wasn't too much, too deep for a first post in a new forum..."

--> No. Excellent stuff. Keep up the good work!

Hi,

I think the question is - what does HBP mean when she talks about a reincarnating 'ego'. Atma is hardly a personal 'principle' for example: it is that aspect of ourselves which is linked to the Universe as a whole, the Divine unknowable something that in Hinduism is called by various names amongst which Brahman. It is the divine in us - hardly something personal.

John Algeo's point was, I think, that Buddhi is also impersonal: it is a reflection of the universal Mahat - as stated in The Theosophical Glossary that was published by G.R.S. Mead in Blavatsky's name (it is unclear to what extent Blavatsky had anything to do with it). Or perhaps it is identical with the universal Mind (Mahat)?

Looking at the sanskrit ;) Buddhi comes from the root bodh which means 'to know' - so Buddhi is that aspect of us which sees directly into things to the heart of them - to the truth in them. Is that a personal something? I don't know. Looked at that way - I would agree with John and say that it is more a matter of attuning yourself to that truth which is implicit in life itself. But that option of attuning yourself is (obviously) karmic and also related to the condition of the next of the triple 'ego': manas. Our minds - the main focus of theosophical practice and that which 'slays the real' if we let it. Thought can hinder insight in so many ways it's scary to me sometimes.
Anyhow - all of the traditions that believe in some sort of reincarnation agree that thought / mind reincarnates. Our thoughts are also habits and are part of our skandhas.

If Buddhi is something personal after all - as in a sense it is at least in this life when it is subject to the personality - then it could also 'carry' the things we learn... I'm pretty sure something carries that stuf over - or is it just karma?

Related links:
Buddhism & Skandhas
Theosophy & skandhas
Karma in Buddhism [my site]

Katinka,

You are bringing up an interesting point. I will get out my books and do a little research. Let's see what I can find....

HPB seems to say that the Ego is the "thing" that reincarnates:

“…the principle which does not reincarnate -- save the exceptions pointed out -- is the false personality, the illusive human Entity defined and individualized during this short life of ours, under some specific form and name; but that which does and has to reincarnate nolens volens under the unflinching, stern rule of Karmic law -- is the real EGO.”
Isis Unveiled, Vol. 2, Page 37
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/isis/iu2-01.htm

“…the "Soul" (the Ego or Self) of the defunct is said to be living in Eternity: it is immortal, "co-eval with, and disappearing with the Solar boat," i.e., for the cycle of necessity. This "Soul" emerges from the Tiaou (the realm of the cause of life) and joins the living on Earth by day, to return to Tiaou every night. This expresses the periodical existences of the Ego.”
Secret Doctrine, Vol. 1, Page 227
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-1-11.htm

“…the higher Self, the Spiritual Ego, [is] that which is eternally reincarnating under the influence of its lower personal Selves, changing with every re-birth…”
Secret Doctrine, Vol. 2, Page 109
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd2-1-06.htm

“…a conscious surviving Ego-soul [is] that principle which survives after a man, and reincarnates in a like man.”Secret Doctrine, Vol. 2, Page 196 Footnote
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd2-1-10.htm

~~~

These seem to indicate that it is the Ego which reincarnates. Now, for the definition of the Ego. Let me do some more research.

I am presently reading the book, Secret Doctrine: Questions and Answers, by Geoffrey Barborka.

http://www.theos-talk.com/archives/200309/tt00228.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/091351077...glance&n=283155

In the book, Mr. Barborka answers the question, "What reincarnates?"

And I quote:

~~~

Question. What reincarnates?

Answer. Although the answer to this question may be given in as brief a manner as the query -- in two words -- the ignificance of the response is gained when he reason for it is supplied, namely, the reason for The Secret Doctrine's response, as well as the need for understanding the constitution of man -- usually referred to as the seven principles of man. For this study has greater meaning than is usually suspected. Here is H.P .B.'s recommendation:

". . . study well the Principles of both the Kosmos and ourselves, dividing the group into the permanent and the impermanent, the higher and immortal and the
lower and mortal, for thus only can we master and guide, first the lower cosmic and personal, then the higher cosmic and impersonal. Once we can do that we have secured our immortality." (S.D. III, 514 3rd ed.; V, 489, 6 vol. ed.)

Following the advice, the permanent -- consisting of the higher and immortal constituents, usually referred to as the higher triad -- is first listed:

Atman -- The Divine Spark (The Monadic Essence)
Buddhi -- The Discriminating Principle
Manas -- The Mind Principle

The impermanent -- consisting of the lower and mortal constituents -- the lower quaternary:

Kama -- The Desire Principle
Prana -- The Life-Principle
Linga-sarira -- The Model Body
Sthula-sarira -- The Physical Body

There is no need to consider the mortal components here: these do not reincarnate.

Atman is defined as that which:

". . . neither progresses, forgets, nor remembers. It does not belong to this plane: it is but the ray of light eternal which shines upon and through the darkness of matter. . ." (S.D. I, 244 or. ed.; I, 264 3rd ed.; I, 289 6 vol. ed.)

It does so by means of Buddhi, its upadhi (a term which may be rendered "a veil of spirit.") These two principles, Atma-Buduhi, are termed the Monad, which in its turn requires an upadhi.

"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." (S.D. II, 241; II, 252, 3rd ed.; III, 244 6 vol. ed.)

Thus it is Higher Manas -- Manas Ego -- which reincarnates, termed the Reincarnating Ego.

In The Key to Theosophy H.P .B. poses the question: "What is it that reincarnates?" and answers it:

"The Spiritual thinking Ego, the permanent principle in man, or that which is the seat of Manas." (p. 121 or. ed.)


(Secret Doctrine: Questions and Answers, by Geoffrey Barborka, pp. 42-43)

~~~

That which reincarnates, described technically, is the upadhi of the monad, namely "Higher Manas," usually referred to as the Reincarnating Ego. While upadhi is usually rendered "a vehicle," its literal meaning allows this rendering: "veil of spirit." The radiance of Atman thus illumines or shines through the upadhi.

At this point it would be well to refer to the Mahatma's answer to a question placed by Mr. Sinnett:

"The spiritual Ego. . . is continually evolving personalities?

"The Spiritual Ego goes on evolving personalities, in which 'the sense of identity' is very complete while living. After their separation from the physical Ego, that sense returns very dim, and belongs wholly to the recollections of the physical man." (The Mahatma Letters, p.174).

"Now these personalities I understand to be absolutely new evolutions in each case. A. P. Sinnett is, for what it is worth -- absolutely a new invention?" (ibid 147)

"An error. A. P. Sinnett is not 'an absolutely new invention.' He is the child and creation of his antecedent personal self; the Kannic progeny. . ." (ibid p. 175)

(Secret Doctrine: Questions and Answers, by Geoffrey Barborka, p. 50)

I guess John Algeo knew what he was talking about - this proves his point, just about. I guess it would have to be the higher manas then that learns spiritual truths and keeps a knowledge of right choices made.

I do have a problem with Barborka though: the SD quote mentions two things: higher manas and terrestial egoistical personality. How do bad habits fit in? Aren't they too 'reincarnating' material as it were? They are karmic - and from a Buddhist standpoint certainly reincarnate. Still they can't be said to be part of the higher manas, I don't think. Barborka would probably solve it by saying that we all send out elementals (life-atoms in his words) during life and especially when our 'system' (my word) dissolves after death. Then, when the reincarnating ego (higher manas + divine ray: buddhi-manas) comes down again for a new incarnation it attracts back to itself those life-atoms or elementals that it shed at the end of his/her last life. Would be nice if you could look that up in that excellent question&answer book by Barborka... (has an excellent reputation already, though I haven't read it myself).

Katinka,

Your question (when we bring bad habits over from a previous incarnation, where are they stored in the interim?) is a great question. I will continue to read Barborka's book, and, if I find his take on the matter, I will let you now.

I just wanted to bump this thread up to the top.

Re: Katinka's query about the "bad habits".

All our lower energies are naturally attracted to and remain with whatever creature or energy pool they are in sympathetic vibration with, (fleshy or not,) between our lifetimes. When rebirth occurs these lower life atoms then leave their way-station to rejoin their Master who is returning to a flesh body.

What kind of characteristics, attributes has a part that reincarnates- is this "part" made from atoms (is it of physical, material nature) with it's mass, dimensions, .. ?

Mar,

Take a look at this chart.



Our universe is said to be composed of seven Planes of Existence, which are labeled down the left side of the graph. (Hey Nicholas, do Judge's followers accept these seven names?)

It is the three "objects" called the Atma, the Buddhi, and the Manas which unite into what is called the Reincarnating Ego. This is the "object" which reincarnates.

You asked,

"What kind of characteristics, attributes has a part that reincarnates- is this "part" made from atoms (is it of physical, material nature) with it's mass, dimensions, .. ?"

--> Each level of the formed Planes of Existence are made up atoms. According to Leadbeater, each single atom is actually made up of a group of hundreds of atoms of the Plane above it. (I am not sure how Judge's followers see this — perhaps Nicholas can help us on this one.) For example, an atom on the Manas level is actually hundreds of atoms on the Buddhic level grouped together in one group.

Is this, who we really are?
If so, where is this "Reincarnating Ego" positioned, (placed,centered,situated..)?

Is this "Reincarnating Ego" eternal?

Article about this topic http://www.asitis.com/2/17.html

Any similarities with Theosophy?

Mar,

You asked,

"Is this, who we really are?"

--> Yes and no. Take a look at this graphic.



There is only one reality, and that reality is the Absolute (the first object in the graphic above). We (and everything else) are all part of the Absolute. The true nature of the Absolute is unkown to us. All we know is, spirit and matter came from the Absolute. Spirit and matter is where the story of "what we are" begins.

You probably have read Genesis 1:1 in the Bible, where it says Spirit moved over the Waters. (The Waters is matter.) In Theosophical symbolism, Spirit shined on the Waters, and billions of points of Light reflected off the Waters. We are those billions of sparks of Light. But at that point, we had a long way to go before we would become individualized human beings. We were merely sparks of energy with no form, no point of reference. What was needed was experiences in a material world.

Each spark wrapped itself in layers of materiality in order to gain concrete experience. Each spark wrapped itself in one layer, then another. Eventually, each spark descended down to a level called the Atman Level, or the Atman Plane of Existence. This was the first level that anything like individuality was accomplished. (At levels above the Atman Level, we were still too close to the Absolute to really have any individuality.)

We needed to wrap ourselves in even more layers of the material world. The Atman wrapped itself in matter from the Buddhi Level, and created a shell for itself called Buddhic Body or Buddhi. The Atman and Buddhi together make up what is called the Monad, which is the second object in the graphic above.

Still more veiling into matter was needed. The Buddhi wrapped itself in matter from the Manas or Mental Level, and created a shell for itself called the Higher Mental Body. Thus, three objects now existed, called the Atma-Buddhi-Manas. This Atma-Buddhi-Manas is called the Reincarnating Ego (or just "Ego"), which is the third object in the graphic above. The Reincarnating Ego is directly involved with what happens from incarnation to incarnation. (Please note the Theosophical idea of Ego is very different from the Modern Psychology idea of Ego.)

From the Ego we get the Lower Mental Body and the Astral Body. These two objects compromise the Personality, which is the fourth and last object in the graphic above.

To answer you question, we are the interaction of the fourth "objects" in the graphic above, plus a physical body.

"...where is this "Reincarnating Ego" positioned, (placed,centered,situated..)?"

--> Think of the different bodies as co-located spheres, one inside the other. Therefore, we are actually several different spheres of energy, all centered on the middle-point of our physical body.

"Is this 'Reincarnating Ego' eternal?"

--> No. Each part of the Reincarnating Ego will last only as long as it is needed. Once a part of it is no longer needed, that part will be discarded. Let me review how the "bodies" or spheres interact.

Atman cannot manifest on the next lower level, the Buddhi Plane, so it creates a "body" or veil for itself on the Buddhi Plane, so that "body" can have experiences. One effect of all this is that a place for a center of consciousness is created. We humans are presently conscious on the Lower Mental Plane. The day will come when we raise our consciousnes to the Buddhi Plane. At that point, all "bodies" below the Buddhi Plane will become unnecessary, and they will be discarded. Likewise, when we finally become fully conscious on the Atman Plane, we will discard the Buddhi "body" forever.

"The soul is atomic in size...."

--> I do not think the size of the Reincarnating Ego has ever been determined. My understanding is the Mental Body is larger than the Astral Body, the Buddhic Body is larger than the Mental Body, etc., although I am not sure about that.

"This atomic soul is floating in the five kinds of air...."

--> In Theosophy, our "soul" is said to have seven principles, which is what I think they are referring to. It may also be referring to what are called the Four Elements.

"...is situated within the heart...."

--> Rather than this being a center-point of the Ego, I think it is the location of one of the Chakras called the Heart Chakra.

"...and spreads its influence all over the body of the embodied living entities."

--> That agrees with Theosophy.

"When the soul is purified from the contamination of the five kinds of material air, its spiritual influence is exhibited."

--> This is basically correct, althought I would say that, once we raise ourselves to a point where we no longer need a physical, astral, and mental body, etc., a great deal of purification will have occured (which seems to be the same thing your quote is saying). Let's relate this idea to your quote: Once we have been liberated from our astral, mental, etc., bodies, we will have much more spiritual influence on events around us.

Nick, I'm not sure one can speak of "size" or "location" beyond the astral, unless perhaps figuratively.

Jon,

You may be right. Leadbeater said the mental body is larger than the astral body, so that is where I got it from. Have any followers of Mr. Judge ever addressed the issue?

Christian,

Thanks for your verification. Having those psychic abilities of yours sure comes in handy!

Christian,

Thanks again for the psychic feedback. Blavatsky downplayed the descriptions of the astral plane, etc., so it is good to hear what you can describe.

I do not think Theosophy is a belief system that was 'proven.' — not at all. I do not think there have been demonstrated, verfied, reproducable science experiments in connection with our existence, our bodies, spirit, planes of existence, etc. As a matter of fact, I think Theosophists have shyed away from such "test tube" research. I feel most of Theosophical activity in the last 100 years has been in lecturing and studying of ideas written in books. Certainly, such scientific research is needed, but I think we are still waiting for it. If you can find some scientific studies, please feel free to share them. Coincidentally, at the San Diego 2006 Summer Conference, one of the most popular presentations was a presentation that "proved" the astral body exists.

By the way, some people may be interested in attending your seminars. What is your schedule of seminars for the next several months? Do you have an address to your web page?

Christian,

You said,

"...it was one of the earliest readings I recall relating to Theosophy. It is what drew me to explore it further."

--> I am curious as to what it says. I hope you can find it and share it with us.

"I was in five cities yesturday, and have five more to visit tomorrow."

--> Ten cities in two days? Holy Moly! No wonder you cannot find anyting in your home library. It sounds like your schedule is too busy to have any person time.

Christian,

You said,

"This will show the larger events, but not the smaller venues."

--> Thanks for the link. Feel free to share information about your smaller venues, when you can find the time.

Thank you for posting the various pieces of information that provide "proof". My, that is a lot of information!

Regarding the need to prove Theosophical ideas and concepts, I have taken the position that such proof is not necessary. There is a saying: for those who believe, no proof is necessary, and for those who do not believe, no proof is enough. My position is, we just present Theosophical ideas, hoping that these ideas with "click" with people. I leave the proving of such ideas to other people.

There is a theory that many of us have embraced Theosophical ideas in this life because we were exposed to Theosophy in previous lives, and it is just the exposure to such ideas in this lifetime that triggered our interest and willingness to study them.

In my personal experience, I did not immediately embrace Theosophy when I was first exposed to them -- not at all! I first came across Theosophy when I was 12 years old, because my brother's mother-in-law came into our family at that time, and her and I had endless discussions (debates?) at that time about Theosophical ideas. (By the time I was 15, however, I was hooked.)

The basic similarity is that if the soul purifies itself, it gets more influential.

Those five breaths are not part of classic theosophy as far as I know, but without the meaning to the words it's hard to tell. Prana is in the sevenfold way Blavatsky visualised the human being, so that's not different. Vedana is feeling, right? So that can be translated into the theosophical 'kama'. (also sanskrit obviously, but they are sort of synonyms). I don't know about the rest.

Visualizing the soul as a physical atom is not helpful, I don't think. When it was called an atom by the ancient Indian philosophers, I'm sure they weren't aware of the meaning people would attach to the word in the 21st century...

I think it's important to realize that when we talk about the 'constitution' of man, and talk about aspects of that: physical body, astral, prana, emotional, mental (manas), buddhi and atma - we don't mean (or should not mean) to suggest these are as separate from each other as lego-blocks. For instance our emotions and thoughts have their reflections in the physical brain, as neurologists know (they would not put it like that, but that's another story). Similarly, when we use drugs like alcohol that has it's effect on our thoughts and feelings, and thereby also on our emotional and mental 'bodies'.

Christian,

Regarding proofs, you are way ahead of us, in that you are psychic and we are not. This puts you in a unique position to "prove" things we cannot prove. I encourage you to continue in your research, especially in the validating (and un-validating) of Theosophical concepts. After all, that is what the Third Fundamental is all about, isn't it?

KH,

You said,

"Those five breaths are not part of classic theosophy as far as I know, but without the meaning to the words it's hard to tell."

--> Yes, I have not seen those five names before either.

"Visualizing the soul as a physical atom is not helpful, I don't think."

--> It is an interesting idea, that the word "atom" has changed in meaning since the advent of modern science. Another factor is that the soul (according to Theosophy) is actually several different factors working together simultaneously. To use one word to refer to it is almost misleading.

"...when we talk about the 'constitution' of man, and talk about aspects of that: physical body, astral, prana, emotional, mental (manas), buddhi and atma - we don't mean (or should not mean) to suggest these are as separate from each other as lego-blocks."

--> True. Blavatsky uses the terms Buddhi-Manas and Kama-Manas as if they are two different things, when, of course, they are not.

Christian,

You said,

"I have, by the way, stumbled upon some commentary by de Purucker about Thesophy being provable by scientific method, and that this is being done."

--> By all means, please share anything he may have said.

"I don't find you have to be "perfected" in the highest degree, which might be presumed, to see the atomic existence of things. I have done it...."

--> Please describe what you have "seen".

"I think, however, we relatively need to become [more] perfected if we are to make such discoveries, but [progress] is not so measured as it is in our world. That progress, movement so to speak, opens up many doors."

--> That is the purpose of Theosophy; to make progress along the Path.

Hi

Can you tell me, what exactly is happening when we die, according to Theosophy (step by step)
Thanks

Looking from a perspective of person that is dying/dies.

Mar,

Here is a chart I put together. The chart is a continuous cycle. The chart "begins" in the bottom left corner, with a physical birth and death. The person then cycles through the various after-life stages, again arriving at the point of physical birth.

(Please note the chart is unclickable, even though it says it is.)

Please note that some Theosophists do not agree with everything on this chart. For example, some people feel forsaking Nirvana and staying on Earth to help others is the most important thing a Nirvana-qualified person can do. Also, there is some disagreement as to whether Devachan is in the Lower Mental Plane or the Higher Mental Plane.

Hi one in all,

as already said in various ways, the only thing that reincarnates, if it does, is the personalised attachement to the identity, each individuals own identity. More accurately, the dependancy is not of identity as there isn't one in truth, but only a minds/ego's idea of an identity, of who I am, what I own, where I've been and where I'll be going.

In the very hands-on presence of this moment, you do not have an identity, as you emptied of everything if you do not look throught the lenses of past. Any need reincarnation is borne out of needing to have more experience, learning, growing and evolving. How could you evolve more if you already are the whole creation, reflected through this body-mind?

It's an interesting topic to be looked at, but it can set more clogs turning in the thinking mind, leading to more analyzing and less doing, living, loving. Attachement to understanding is also an investment into the phenomenon of the ego, that mostly happens in men. They got to know their destiny, their reason for being here, the next project and achievement. As men we are future orientated. Women, past orientated with the emotional bag of pain.

Anyhow...remain blessed all in one.

know.yourself

Hi, know.yourself, and welcome to the Forum.

You said,

"...a minds/ego's idea of an identity, of who I am, what I own, where I've been and where I'll be going."

--> This gets back to the relationship of the Monad to the Ego. I have always wondered it there is any way to describe the relationship between the two.

"Any need reincarnation is borne out of needing to have more experience, learning, growing and evolving. How could you evolve more if you already are the whole creation, reflected through this body-mind?"

--> This begs the question: How will we evolve, even after we have discarded our physical, astral, and mental bodies forever? Even Arupa Beings are still evolving.

"...it can set more clogs turning in the thinking mind, leading to more analyzing and less doing, living, loving."

--> I agree. I think some Theosophists are guilty of doing too much debating and intellectual hair-splitting. We need to live Theosophy.

---

If you have a chance, please visit the Introductions Area and tell us a little bit about yourself — which country you are in, which parts of Theosophy interest you, etc.

I commented on the previous thread, about "the ancestral heart'. These thoughts struck me, as I continue to read The Secret Doctrine. The words "reincarnating ego" sound so western to me, and seem to be to annalitical.

HPB writes, " ...in Egyptian esoteric ism, the "ancestral heart," or re-incarnating principle, the permanent Ego, the defunct says:- "Oh, my heart, my ancestral heart necessary for my transformations,......do not separate thyself from me before the guardian of the Scales. Thou art my personality within my breast, divine companion watching over my fleshes (bodies)......." It is in Sekhem that lies concealed "the Mysterious Face," or the real man concealed under the false personality, the triple-crocodile of Egypt, the symbol of the higher Trinity or human Triad, Atma, Buddhi, and Manas." (S.D I,220)

Then, ""I am the three-wicked Flame and my wicks are immortal," says the defunct. " (S.D. I,237)

G.de P. writes in "The Occult Glossary", under Reincarnating Ego, "When death occurs, the mortal and material portions sink into oblivion; whist the Reincarnating Ego carries the best and noblest parts of the spiritual memory of the man that was into Devachan or Heaven-world of post-mortem rest and recuperation, where the Ego remains in the bosom of the Monad (or of the Monadic Essence)..."

I do not know if HPB speaks of the "bosom of the monad", but the symbol of the "heart" speaks strongly to my thoughts. To me this symbol of heart relates both to the Ego and Monad.

Jim B.

On the previous page, Nick posted a chart which defined atma-buddhi as monad (jiva.) Is this not a metaphor? I think atma is the vehicle of jiva, and both are high enough consciousness to be termed spirit proper (besides that the 7 principles are 'the 7 spirits,') so there can be confusion between them, but it seems they are really two sorts of spirit. IIRC HPB both implied/said atma is the vehicle of monad, and called atma monad (which seems a metaphor.) There has to be consciousness connecting spirit of Pranava/Logos to individual spirit, and it seems jiva--monad--is the highest individual spirit (of course Logos may be individual but it is also collective.)

With the idea that pneuma (atma) is the vehicle of monad, then Logos, monad, pneuma, psyche, and nous incarnate in thymos incarnates in bios.

Nick's other chart that asks "Live one more incarnation" is good but part is too simple. It seems people could also decide to live one more reincarnation after a time in the astral (or perhaps more properly termed, temporal) plane. They could also decide not to reincarnate in a mental body for a long time, and perhaps do emotional plane incarnations. In fact I think there are 4 'vestures' of incarnation that may not include the material world.

http://www.energyreality.com has interesting illustrations of the subtle bodies and descriptions of their worlds ('planes.') The author also calls the worlds dimensional. I did not quite stay in the state where I could observe it, but if they are dimensional (such as the 'astral' plane being temporal--having a time dimension) then each one has a larger space and each higher subtle body is larger--just draw or look at a tesseract (4-dimensional cube,) penteract (5-dimensional,) etc.--each higher one is larger and made by connecting vertices of 2 lower ones. If you want to see hypercubes search for these terms and mathcurve.com, which has the best, orthogonal--centered, drawings of ones up to 9-d. I have noticed similarities between hexeracts and descriptions of the soul lotus.

David,

HPB was inconsistent in her use of the terms Jiva, Jivatman, and Monad. Geoffrey Barborka has addressed this issue in his book, The Divine Plan, pp. 20 and 89, especially HPB's confused mixing of the two terms Jiva and Jivatman. The Monad is the Atman plus Buddhi.



** DP = The Divine Plan by G. Barborka

i-7-5 refers to Stanzas of Dzyan, Book 1, Stanza 7 Shloka 5

Not according to HPB. Atman is a ray of the Absolute, therefore, we could not even call it "spirit". It becomes a "spirit" when reflected in Buddhi, forming thus the "Monad". To assign any quality or place or limitation to Atman is a metaphysical mistake.

The absolute (Logos) can be called divine spirit, so of course atman can be called individual (or divine if you think) spirit--buddhi is soul, and in English what is defined beyond that is all 3 of regular human, higher individual (or divine,) and pure divine spirit. If one takes a closer look at the Egyptian and Hebrew lists of principles in SD, and reads the Greek ones, these correspondences become clear.

There cannot be a consciousness gap between the adi and atmic planes--if there was no anupadaka consciousness there would be no lower consciousness. Do you call this anupadaka (note also called monadic plane by Adyar Theosophists, though some people disagree with them) consciousness also atma? Usually it is called jiva, purusha, or paramatma, the latter especially denoting something beyond atma, like Paranirvana is a Nirvanic plane beyond the lowest Nirvana. If anupadaka is a divine plane it has to have consciousness, and if it is the highest plane of individual consciousness, each living being must have a paramatman but their atman, buddhi, manas, or kama are not necessarily developed enough to be defined existent.

It is more of a metaphysical mistake to mix an idea's terms from different languages. HPB did it, and she got people to think, but did not necessarily make anything clear.

I find your terminology somewhat confusing... I don't see how we could say that the Logos is the Absolute. Neither of the Logos (1st, 2nd or 3rd) are the Absolute. Every Logos is new in its own system when it is manifested. Therefore, it cannot be absolute. The Absolute (Parabrahman) is beyond the Logos, and it is said that the latter cannot even perceive it, it only perceives its veil, Mulaprakriti.

>The Absolute (Parabrahman) is beyond the Logos...

It depends on terminology: you mixed Sanatana Dharma and Hellenismos Philosophy terms. Anyway, Parabrahman can be called divine spirit, so what I said still may make sense.

If Parabrahman is Shabdhabrahman, the latter is a synonym for Logos. Monad Agathon ('the one' 'the good') is still Parabrahman, but that involves the word monad, which is also less than Logos.

What about paramatman (or some spirit) being beyond atman?

dchmelik,

I'm talking according to HPB's terminology. If you read the First Fundamental Proposition in the Proem of the Secret Doctrine, you will find a "definition" of Parabrahman or the Absolute Reality.
It seems to me you don't have the concept of the Absolute in your philosophical conception, because again, Shabdhabrahman is the Unmanifested Logos, not the Absolute.
You could call Atman "the universal spirit", as a figure of speech, but that is misleading from an esoteric point of view. If you read the instructions of HPB to the Esoteric School in the Collected Writings Vol XII or the Third Volume of the Secret Doctrine you will find what I'm saying about Atman.

David,

You are going to have trouble if you try to find English equivalents for all of these terms from Sanskrit, etc. For example, HPB used the word spirit to describe the First Logos. She also used the word spirit to describe Atman. Clearly, the First Logos and Atman are not the same thing.

"The Absolute (Parabrahman) is beyond the Logos... --> It depends on terminology...."

--> No, it does not. The Logos is a periodic and temporary emanation from the Absolute.

"you mixed Sanatana Dharma and Hellenismos Philosophy terms...."

--> Theosophists are familiar with HPB's terminology, so things will be simpler if we stick more to her preferred terminology. The term Monad Agathon may or may not be equivalent to the term Parabrahman, but Parabrahman is the term we are all familiar with, so it just makes things easier to call Parabrahman by the name Parabrahman.

I continue the 'What is the highest consciousness that [re]incarnates [in us]?' dialectic until the last 2 paragraphs, but note that since some say the absolute is rather undefinable the question 'What is it that reincarnates?' continues more in the last paragraph.

Logos and atman differ no[t much] more than spiritual triad principles do--they are all spiritual, and one defines each ' [adjective] spirit' (as I did in my consciousness/intelligence/spirit post in 'Concepts' board.)

Parabrahman and Shabdhabraman may differ, but both may be Logoic according to Christians/Nazareans and likely some Hellenismos Philosophers. Logos is not only Word/pranava but an idea[l]: Parabrahman is ideal.

It may be easier to mix terms from different philosophies and languages, but I would not say it is simpler or completely facilitates cultural/religious understanding/tolerance. Mixing terms may conduce understanding/tolerance, but it is easier/tolerant to consider/use language/cultural viewpoints. I meant if Logos (a.k.a. Word Deity) is not Parabrahman, there is still a Greek term--the more full definition of Monad ('the one') Agathon ('the good') is 'the one [absolute] ideal form[s] of good.' Ideal forms are monads, and Platonically 'the one'/'the good' is absolute (or a main absolute, though there may be others, so you are right it may or may not be Parabrahman, though I think Monad Agathon also means 'absolute good.' If its only other attribute is being ideal, I think Monad Agathon is equivalent to Parabrahman and the Nazarean Logos--though perhaps there is a quabalah idea beyond Logos, OTOH some Nazareans or even Hellenismos Philosophers might mean both absolute and shabdha/pranava/nada by it.)

As I said previously and above, HPB mixes terminology. She says there may be other correct ideas. I have read SD 1 - 3 in the last 4 or 9 years (depending when I started, with months between vol. 2 and finding vol. 3.) I do have an 'absolute' concept... I do not recall if HPB discusses Shabdhabrahman, but Parabrahman is also unmanifest, so Logos is not necessarily excluded from meaning Parabrahman, if its only English term is 'deity's/absolute spirit' and Logos is Greek for 'highest spirit' (it seems more appropriate than Agathon, but do you know something more appropriate? IIRC some definitions of Chaos, even Zeus, etc. may work) Parabrahman--a divine name, thus spiritual--can be called deity-spirit. I do not recall, but maybe Parabrahman is beyond causeless cause, which from Nazarean philosophy I consider Logos Deity (as well as this partly being cause-effect,) but I think Parabrahman is absolute ideal causeless cause Deity. You do not have to think Logoi are 'absolute ideal causeless cause' & 'cause-effect,' but I consider them mostly the former (and some monists may think they are more equally both; I am somewhat heptaist-infinitist when even numerotheist) until my Quabalah & neo-Platonism study indicates otherwise. I do not think this topic is so interesting.

It is just not so interesting speculating/defining what is beyond Logoi (starting on adi according to either Adyar Theosophists or Arcane School, which I am unsure is right by HPB or members here) which besides fully or partly incarnating in us, are also beyond us as it is.

What about anapudaka (also called monadic?) Do you think incarnated on it are Logoi, monads, other type of spirit, or a gap between an adi Logos/Shabdhabrahman and atmic pneuma/atma? I do think the Adyar idea 'triple manifestation' implies anapudakan and and atmic Logoi, though that idea as illustrated also shows an adi triad which I tend to consider the triple Logoi, though two are reflected in anupadaka and atma (saying they are really there would seem trinitarian.) Do some people think the 2nd, 3rd Logoi manifest in anupadaka and atma and so these should not be called spirit, though HPB calls [adi] Logos spirit, or do you think it should just not be defined because she says no one will know them (which also seems trinitarian) in this universe? Maybe (unlikely, at least by abductive reason) we cannot know what highest human consciousness is, but we can abduce there are at least 2 higher consciousnesses than humanity and that besides these there is highest human consciousness. Maybe there is a gap (or more) between adic and atmic or buddhic consciousness, but IIRC HPB said humanity will not know adi, anupadaka, atma in this universe, and it may be more sensible that the gap is between anupadakan and buddhic consciousness. The highest individual consciousness, which I still say is paramatman beyond atman, should be closest to the highest consciousness whatsoever, or there would be lower 'highest consciousness whatsoever' which makes less sense unless one thinks humans are the most developed beings. Saying paramatma are developed without doing so in a vehicle might be odd, and that only leaves atma for higher-than-human beings, though all beings may have a highest individual consciousness. Maybe lower-than-human beings' highest individual consciousness is lower, such as atma, though this is also rather odd. Leibniz lists both self-perceptive and non-self-perceptive monads, so one could say monads are paramatma and atma, but the non-self-perception could also just be lack of buddhi. Whatever you think about this, there has to be some anupadaka consciousness; what 'principle [of man]' do you think incarnates there into the 'principles in man' (note the preposition's difference?)