Hello,

I am reading this book "Exploring Reincarnation" by Hans TenDam (English translation first published in 1987). In it, he says that "In the development of theosophy, its ideas about reincarnation changed gradually but sweepingly, and some ideas have remained vague and somewhat contradictory."

He claims that HPB believed in anatta, rather than in reincarnation; that in volune 1 of Isis Unveiled she writes that reincarnation in nature is the exception rather than the rule.

I have not read Isis Unveiled. Can someone comment on this please?

Thanks

Yesspiritual,

I just scanned Isis. The word exception appears 47 times. I did not find any mention of reincarnation being the exception rather than the rule in nature. Such an idea goes against everything Blavatsky taught.

It is possible to believe in both anatta and reincarnation — Blavatsky believed in both, as do I.

I am afraid that a lot of people write terrible and wrong things about Theosophy, especially on the Internet. I find it odd that TenDam does not list any quotes from Isis.

By the way, Theosophy takes credit for popularizing reincarnation in the western world. If it was not for Theosophy, we would not even be discussing reincarnation right now.

Hi Nick the Pilot,

Thanks a lot for the reply.

Yesspiritual,

By the way, are you familiar with the concept of Anatta?

Hi All

Just a short article on Anatta.

http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/articles/anatta.html

Doug

Here is HPB addressing the reincarnation in Isis Unveiled question:

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/isis/iu2-ap2.htm

The problem did not have anything to do with atta or anatta. It was just misunderstanding her regarding the lower principles coming back quickly, in unusual cases, versus the normal process.

Greetings, This is my first post. I am coming on 61 years and live in rural B.C. Canada. I have been studying Theosophy for about 6 months, and have been reading the S.D. I was raised in California in the 60's, and was always interested in the esoteric. However, I got caught up in Christianity. Have studied most of its schools, but seemed to get into trouble continuously with the hierarchy. Through the study of the Historical Jesus and process theology, saw that the churches teaching of orthodoxy was a sham. Tried Gnostic thought, but found it to be another set of doctrines, and to my opinion, exclusive.
I finally came across Theosophy, and something clicked. I am not that interested in the New Age, but more metaphysical musings.
What I am interesting in now is a comparison of Buddhism and Theosophy. This has been covered before, however I see the topic on Anatta. I understand the terms Anicca, Dukkha, and Anatta. Also my thoughts are confused on Sunyata and Svabhava.
On another yahoo list I mentioned this, recently.
I wrote first, I have a question on the term Svabhavat. I use the word 'term' as it may be that Buddhism and the S.D. define it definitely see that Manvantara sense, with its thoughts of impermanence. In Shambhala's Dictionary and Oxford's Dictionary of Buddhism, the say that "all things are seen as devoid of self nature."Now the Secret Doctrine does not have to align itself with Buddhism, but it would be helpful.
Later, after some more study (and reading some David Reigle and Hesselink on the subject) I said, One thought is on extrinsic emptiness (Tib. gzhan-stong) on the embryonic Buddha. One comment on this is, "According to this theory, ultimate reality (paramartha) is not empty of it's own intrinsic nature (svabhava) but inherently endowed with all aspects of delusive conventional phenomena." Oxfords Dictionary of Buddhism. This will take some more investigation on my part.

So, on further investigation, see the Jonangpa School, Shen-tong, and the writings of Taranatha on Emptiness. Also, that this is not the main thoughts of Buddhism.
So I still am confused on Blavatsky and Buddhism, especially Atman. I does seem that Buddhism denies this idea.
Any thoughts, Jim

Hi, Jim, and welcome to the Forum.

You said,

"...and have been reading the S.D."

--> My, that is a formidable task. Feel free to ask questions on the SD as you go along. (I am presently working on a study guide for the Stanzas of Dzyan, which is the basis for the SD.)

"...and was always interested in the esoteric."

--> Perhaps you are a reincarnated Buddhist monk...? I feel that your interest in such things must have from somewhere....

"What I am interesting in now is a comparison of Buddhism and Theosophy."

--> I used to be a Buddhist, but I am not a Buddhist anymore. Another member named Nicholas (yes, he and I have the same first name) is a practicing Buddhist. It will be interesting to compare Nicholas' and my opinion of the differences between Buddhism and Theosophy. (Nicholas sees the two as the same, while I do not.)

"...my thoughts are confused on Sunyata and Svabhava."

--> Hopefully, Nicholas can help us with Sunyata. Regarding Swabhava, it is also good to take a look at the differences between Swabhava and Swabhavat.

Swabhavat (also called Mulaprakriti) is the basic substance of the universe. All other things in the universe are made from Mulaprakriti.

Swabhava (also called Prakriti) is the basic substance from which this particular universe is constructed. Universes come and go. Prakriti appears and disappears with the universes. Mulaprakriti is always there.

"...the Secret Doctrine does not have to align itself with Buddhism, but it would be helpful."

--> I believe Theosophy agrees with Buddhism on the nature of Mulaprakriti, although I am not sure about that.

"...ultimate reality (paramartha) is not empty of it's own intrinsic nature (svabhava) but inherently endowed with all aspects of delusive conventional phenomena."

--> This seems to support the idea that Mulaprakriti is unending, and Prakriti (Swabhava) is periodical.

"So I still am confused on Blavatsky and Buddhism, especially Atman. It does seem that Buddhism denies this idea."

--> This takes a complicated answer. First, we must discuss the nature of the Absolute as it relates to everything in the manifested universe. According to Theosophy, the Absolute is the only thing that really "exists." Everything else (everything of our temporary universe) is only an illusion.

[The Absolute is] “ ... the ONE LIFE, eternal, invisible, yet Omnipresent, without beginning or end, yet periodical in its regular manifestations, between which periods reigns the dark mystery of non-Being; unconscious, yet absolute Consciousness; unrealisable, yet the one self-existing reality; truly, ‘a chaos to the sense, a Kosmos to the reason.’ Its one absolute attribute, which is ITSELF, eternal, ceaseless Motion, is called in esoteric parlance the ‘Great Breath,’ which is the perpetual motion of the universe, in the sense of limitless, ever-present SPACE.” (SD vol 1 p 2)

Before any of the events occurred at the beginning of the universe, there was only the Absolute.

“ ... there is one absolute Reality which antecedes all manifested, conditioned, being. This Infinite and Eternal Cause — dimly formulated in the ‘Unconscious’ and ‘Unknowable’ of current European philosophy — is the rootless root of ‘all that was, is, or ever shall be.’ It is of course devoid of all attributes and is essentially without any relation to manifested, finite Being. It is ‘Be-ness’ rather than Being (in Sanskrit, Sat), and is beyond all thought or speculation.” (SD vol 1 p 14)

This brings us to the question of Atman. Regarding of the belief in Atman, Theosophy and Buddhism disagree only in the wording of the definition. According to Buddhism, Atman does not exist. According to Theosophy, the idea that the Atman exists as a separate entity from the Abolute is considered heresy.

"Attavâda [is] the heresy of the belief in Soul or rather in the separateness of Soul or Self from the One Universal, infinite SELF." (Voice of the Silence, p 74)

The difference, then is this: Theosophy says there is no Atman (soul) if it is considered separate from the Absolute, while Buddhism says there is no Atman, period. Technically, Theosophy agrees with Buddhism, in the sense that trees do not really exist, water does not really exist, and the Atman does not really exist. (The difference is that Buddhism emphasizes the non-existence of the Atman, while not emphasizing the non-existence of trees and water at the same time.)

The difference gets down to terminology. Theosophy says reincarnation happens, while Buddhism says it does not happen. Buddhism (at least those forms of Buddhims which believe in rebirth) teaches the idea of rebirth not reincarnation. (Buddhism make this distinction in order to stress the idea that there is no soul.) As stated before, Theosophy counters with the idea that nothing exists (besides the Absolute), including no soul. Theosophy and Buddhism are really saying the same thing (and modern Buddhism refuses to agree that they are saying the same thing).

Thank you for your response. I does lift the veil. I suspected that one of the differences between Buddhism and Theosophy is terminology. That is why I used the word "term'. I also suspect that it has to do with esoteric and exoteric.
There is a lot to contemplate in your reply. Also, I will keep you in mind, as I read the S.D. It seems that what I first could not make heads of, becomes clearer, with the help of intuition. I was told, in 'An Introduction to the Secret Doctrine', is to get a handle on the PROEM. This led me to the subjects that I raised. I agree that reading the S.D. is a task, that I have gleaned much from already. I do believe that I should do this first, although I have reviewed the basic concepts in Judge's 'Ocean' and a number of articles on rounds and races. I see that I have more to gain, than to lose, by just getting on with HPB in her major work. Also, it seems to be the key. The more I study it, I find that what I previously read, becomes clearer; and we could continue for aeon's to mine it.
I read on pg. 110 of the S.D., Forat is closely related to the "ONE LIFE."
Then on page 180, " These three are finite aspects or reflections (shadows?) on the field of Cosmic Illusion of ATMA< the seventh, the ONE REALITY."
It seems that Forat is related to Atma. Above, or within, or manifestations of the Absolute.
Thanks, Jim

Jim,

You said,

"...one of the differences between Buddhism and Theosophy is terminology."

--> It is all about terms and concepts. We are merely learning concepsts, one at a time. One of my favorit definitions of Theosophy is, it is a set of concepts that we need to learn.

"I also suspect that it has to do with esoteric and exoteric."

--> This has a lot to do with it. Theosophy claims to reveal a lot of esoteric teachings, teachings that were not available in the 1800's, when Blavatsky did her writing.

"I read on pg. 110 of the S.D., Forat is closely related to the "ONE LIFE."

--> I believe the spelling is Fohat.

" These three are finite aspects or reflections (shadows?) on the field of Cosmic Illusion of ATMA, the seventh, the ONE REALITY."

--> I think HPB is confusing when she call Atma the One Reality. Perhaps it would be better to call it the one manifested reality.

"It seems that Fohat is related to Atma. Above, or within, or manifestations of the Absolute."

--> There are three manifetations of the Absolute — Spirit, Matter, and Fohat. Fohat is energy in its purest form.

[Fohat is that] “... which links spirit to matter, subject to object.... It is the ‘bridge’ by which the ‘Ideas’ existing in the ‘Divine Thought’ are impressed on Cosmic substance as the ‘laws of Nature.’ Fohat is thus the dynamic energy of Cosmic Ideation; or, regarded from the other side, it is the intelligent medium, the guiding power of all manifestation ... Fohat, in its various manifestations, is the mysterious link between Mind and Matter, the animating principle electrifying every atom into life.” (SD vol 1 p 16)

[Fohat is the] “ ... electric, vital power, which, under the Will of the Creative Logos, unites and brings together all forms.... When the ‘Divine Son’ breaks forth, then Fohat becomes the propelling force, the active Power which causes the ONE to become TWO and THREE — on the Cosmic plane of manifestation. The triple One differentiates into the many, and then Fohat is transformed into that force which brings together the elemental atoms and makes them aggregate and combine... Fohat, running along the seven principles of AKASA, acts upon manifested substance or the One Element, as declared above, and by differentiating it into various centers of Energy, sets in motion the law of Cosmic Evolution, which, in obedience to the Ideation of the Universal Mind, brings into existence all the various states of being in the manifested Solar System.

“Fohat, then, is the personified electric vital power, the transcendental binding Unity of all Cosmic Energies, on the unseen as on the manifested planes, the action of which resembles — on an immense scale — that of a living Force.... On the earthly plane his influence is felt in the magnetic and active force generated by the strong desire of the magnetizer. On the Cosmic, it is present in the constructive power that carries out, in the formation of things — from the planetary system down to the glow-worm and simple daisy — the plan in the mind of nature, or in the Divine Thought, with regard to the development and growth of that special thing. In his secondary aspect, Fohat is the Solar Energy, the electric vital fluid, and ... Electricity.” (SD vol 2 pp. 109-110)

It is the interaction of the three — Spirit, Matter, and Fohat — that causes the universe to appear.

Jim,

I found a quote that relates to your question.

...the One manifested life — itself a refection of the Absolute.... (SD vol 1 p 290)

The "One manifested life" sounds to me like the Atman. Thus, it makes sense to think of the Atman as a reflection of the Absolute.

Thanks Nick, for your work on the Straza's of Dzyan. Also, on the theme of learning _concepts_. One of these seem to be 'reflections'. I saw in my earlier reading, "Truely so, since those are the Seven Lights whose reflections are the human immortal Monads-the Atma, or the irradiating Spirit of every creature of the human family."pg. 120. So we get reflections of reflections.
As I understand, the only "immortal" is 'rootless-root'
So, I could include Atma as conditionally immortal.
I am reminded of Siddhartha's words, That all _assembled_ things are impermanent. That would include 'compounded' and "frabricated'.
Only the Parabrahman is beyond reflections.
Also, Nicholas may what to compare Parabrahman with Sunyata.
Jim B.

Jim,

You said,

"So we get reflections of reflections."

--> That reminds me of the Theosophical teaching called Upadhi. Have you heard of it? According to the teachings, Atman puts down a shell of itself into a lower level of consciousness. (It does this because it is unable to be conscious at a lower level.) This shell (or veil) is then conscious on that lower level. That veil then puts down a shell of itself into an even lower level of consciousness. On and on it goes, until consciousness is achieved in the the physical world.

Our consciousness here on the physical world, then, is actually the consciousness of a veil within a veil, within a veil, etc. Our task is to raise our consciousness up to the original level of Atman consciousness.

thanks for helping me ponder the concepts. I came across a quote from GdP, in The Fountain-source of Occultism, " ... that it has not been uncommon, for many to imagine that theosophy is a kind of esoteric Buddhism only (_only- JB), instead of being the ancient cosmic wisdom of the gods, of which the teachings of Gautama the Buddha are but an interpretation. I might add that, while H.P.B. was a formal Buddhist herself for reasons of her own, she was not in her teachings a Buddhist in the sectarian sense of the word."
I came across this while looking a his comments on Sunyata, in his chapter The Void and the Fullness, where he quotes HPB, " Space is neither a 'limitless void', nor a 'conditioned fullness', but both: being on the plane of absolute, the ever-incognisible Deity, which is void only to finite minds, and that of mayavic perception, the Phenum, the absolute Container of all that is, whether manifested or unmanifested; it is, therefore, that ABSOLUTE ALL." SD, I,8
Now, this comment in The Flower Ornament Scripture (Avatamsaka Sutra) become sensable,
"Thus do those buddha children know
The nature of all things is eternally void,
And there's not a single thing that can create_
They realise selflessness, same as the Buddhas'.

The surprising thing is that the S.D. opens my mind to many Truths.

Jim.b.

Jim,

The relationship between Theosophy and modern-day Buddhism is complicated and not clear-cut. You said,

"... it has not been uncommon, for many to imagine that theosophy is a kind of esoteric Buddhism only (_only- JB), instead of being the ancient cosmic wisdom of the gods, of which the teachings of Gautama the Buddha are but an interpretation."

--> It is interesting to contrast Theosophy as (1) a kind of esoteric Buddhism vs. (2) a Gautama-interpreted ancient cosmic wisdom. I wonder if the two are the same. You do not think so?

"...while H.P.B. was a formal Buddhist herself for reasons of her own, she was not in her teachings a Buddhist in the sectarian sense of the word."

--> I think this gets down to one of HPB's basic teachins: that Theosophy is what Gautmam meant to teach, that it is what was originally taught (and became corrupted over the centuries).

Of course, Theosophy is much more than that. Theosophy also includes a list of teachings that were secret, and were only allowed to be revealed to the world in the 1800's. (It is a key teaching that Gautama gave some special teachings only to his inner circle of students.) One way to look at this is to say HPB improved and added to Buddhism as we see it today. But I can definitely identify with people who say HPB's teachings are not Buddhism. (It is my personal opinion that Theosophy is different than modern-day Buddhism.)

We can compare Esoteric Buddhism to Exoteric Buddhism. We can also compare both to those teachings revealed by HPB in the 1800's. Do you see these as three different traditions?

"Space is neither a 'limitless void', nor a 'conditioned fullness', but both: being on the plane of absolute, the ever-incognisible Deity, which is void only to finite minds, and that of mayavic perception, the Phenum, the absolute Container of all that is, whether manifested or unmanifested; it is, therefore, that ABSOLUTE ALL." SD, I,8"

--> Joy Mills made the joke that HPB said we cannot understand anything about the Absolute, then went on for page after page describing attributes of the Absolute! One of the those attributes is Space.

“Space is called in the esoteric symbolism ‘the Seven-Skinned Eternal Mother-Father.’ It is composed from its undifferentiated to its differentiated surface of seven layers. ‘What is that which was, is, and will be, whether there is a Universe or not; whether there be gods or none?’ asks the esoteric Senzar Catechism. And the answer made is - SPACE.” (SD vol 1 p 9)

--> It is fascinating to imagine the "condition" of Space during a Maha-manvantara. Is it different than Space as we know it today? I think we can only speculate on answers to such a question. (Such speculating is what makes Theosophy fun.)

[QUOTE]

Jim,

You said,

"The more I think about it, it is more than the combination of the two."

--> I think it is more the second choice. According to Theosophy, Gautama was only one of a line of Buddhas. Gautama's teachings were essentially the same as all the other Buddhas. The only difference is that each Buddha is allowed to teach more of the teachings, because more of the teachings are "declassified" as the centuries go by. Some poeple think none of gautama's teachings were taught before Gautama appeared. I think there is no reason to make such an assumption.

"If what is meant is the dhyan-chohan reflecting as the dhyan-budda."

--> Technically, I agree. Dhyani-Buddhas are reflections of Dhyani-Chohans.

"Do you mean the race-buddha? If so, than would not Gautama also interpretate cosmic wisdom?"

--> By Race Buddha, I think you mean a Manu. I see Manus and Buddhas as beings at two different levels in the Hierarchy. And, yes, Gautama definitely interpreted cosmic wisdom.

"...the ancient teaching predates either Buddhism."

--> Again, I disagree. The way I see it, Buddhism is the Ancient Wisdom, as far as it was taught to the general public.

"... there may be a secret esoteric buddhism."

--> I cannot imagine such a thing. All esoteric Buddhism is secret. Unless, of course, you are referring to things like Shingon Buddhism.

"... when do you think the Book of Dzyan was given?"

--> It may have been written as far back as the beginning of our human race.

"Pre or post this race-buddha? Of course the other root races must have had wisdom."

--> Exactly. There is no reason to think Gautama suddenly had access to previously unavailable information.

"... if we are in the middle of this breath; are we then the most corrupt?"

--> Corrupt refers to a descent into matter as "bad" and an ascent into spirit as "good." I do not think it refers to a true corruption. HPB has said as much.

"Or is there a hidden meaning to corrupt?"

--> There is. To descend into matter has been described as "bad." HPB made it clear that such a descent is perfectly normal and natural for those who are now making such a descent as part of their normal and healthy spiritual progress. We humans have already completed our descent into matter, and we are presently making an ascent into spirituality. (It is a corruption for one of us humans, therefore, to descend further into matter.) I think that HPB's use of the word corrupt contains a little bit of sarcasm towards people like the Christians who refer to such a descent as being a true corruption.

Nick, thanks for the comments. I'm really going to have to examine what you wrote. There are a few follow ups that I would like to comment on, when I can get them into words.
I did look up manus. There is quite a heirarchy in Theosophy. GdP calls Guatama Buddha a manushya-buddha. Also from the Theosophical Glossary, " there are two kinds of avatars: those born from a woman and the parentless, the anupapadaka." Concepts, and more concepts.
Jim B

Jim,

Here are two quotes on Manushi (Terrestrial, or Born-on-Earth) Buddhas.

Manushi Buddhas are emanations of higher Beings.

“The divine, purely Adi-Buddhic monad manifests as the universal Buddhi (the Maha-buddhi or Mahat in Hindu philosophies) the spiritual, omniscient and omnipotent root of divine intelligence, the highest anima mundi or the Logos. This descends ‘like a flame spreading from the eternal Fire, immoveable, without increase or decrease, ever the same to the end’ of the cycle of existence, and becomes universal life on the Mundane Plane. From this Plane of conscious Life shoot out, like seven fiery tongues, the Sons of Light (the logoi of Life); then the Dhyani-Buddhas of contemplation: the concrete forms of their formless Fathers — the Seven Sons of Light, still themselves, to whom may be applied the Brahmanical mystic phrase: ‘Thou art “THAT” — Brahm.’ It is from these Dhyani-Buddhas that emanate their chhayas (Shadows) the Bodhisattvas of the celestial realms, the prototypes of the super-terrestrial Bodhisattvas, and of the terrestrial Buddhas, and finally of men.” (SD vol 1 p 572)

Four of the seven Earthly Buddhas have appeared so far. Gautama is the most-recent (fourth) Buddha.

“...the Dhyanis watch successively over one of the Rounds and the great Root-races of our planetary chain. They are, moreover, said to send their Bodhisatvas, the human correspondents of the Dhyani-Buddhas (of whom vide infra) during every Round and Race. Out of the Seven Truths and Revelations, or rather revealed secrets, four only have been handed to us, as we are still in the Fourth Round, and the world also has only had four Buddhas, so far.” (SD vol 1 p 42)

I would like to speculate. I continue to ponder the Commentary in the S.D I, pg.144, "The breath of the Father-Mother issues cold and radiant and gets hot and corrupt, to cool once more, and be purified in the eternal bosom of inner Space." I see Inner Space here and previously mentioned on pg. 143, ", not into the space above but into the Space within."
I read somewhere that esoteric can easily become exoteric, and I am wondering that many hints of the esoteric are veiled within the S.D. Of course this most be true, and I again wonder if only through prajna, or intuitive apprehension, they become unveiled.
So, within the previous pages, when it, the "phenomenal Universe" is spoken as "corrupt"; it means more then the "great illusion"pg.145. And this is purified by "being removed the father from the world of Maya.
Are we to take this inner space as the microcosm, and our own existence. Is it really death in this Manvantara and Life in the Pralaya. Also does this "inner space mean, in a way our MIND.
Does mankind reach this bottoming out in this apex of decent during this round, and in ascending is purified as it approaches the Unknown Substance.
This inner space needs "Efflux" (flowing out), however, what is the occult meaning of "a current of Efflux". Does it really mean flowing in?
Just thoughts, Jim B

Jim,

You said,

"I see Inner Space here and previously mentioned on pg. 143, ', not into the space above but into the Space within.' "

--> Blavatsky told us that there is a difference between space as we know it today (outer space), and Space that "existed" between universes. Clearly, the two are not equal. Blavatsky has given us a little description of Space between universes, but her description is not very detailed. I am afraid we just have to read what little she wrote, and guess at what she meant between the lines.

"I read somewhere that esoteric can easily become exoteric, and I am wondering that many hints of the esoteric are veiled within the S.D."

--> Blavatsky mentioned several times that the information in the SD is sketchy and intentionally incomplete. She welcomed us to try to put the pieces together and up with the Big Picture of her complete teachings, and she also warned us that it would be practically impossible to do such a thing.

"...I again wonder if only through prajna, or intuitive apprehension, they become unveiled."

--> Blavatsky told us that the full teachings will only be revealed to us when we become an accepted student.

"And this is purified by 'being removed the father from the world of Maya.' "

--> I interpret this to mean that our Atman is presently dependent on the physical world for activity, and that the day will come when our Atman no longer has such a dependence. Ridding ourselves of such a dependence is the entire goal of Theosophy.

"Also does this "inner space mean, in a way our MIND."

--> In my humble opionion, they day will come when we discard even Mind as unnecessary.

"Does mankind reach this bottoming out in this apex of decent during this round....?"

--> Yes, we have already passed the point of bottoming-out. For this present humanity, the only way is up.

"... and in ascending is purified as it approaches the Unknown Substance."

--> Correct.

"Does it really mean flowing in?"

--> I think the flowing-out is followed by a flowing-in, which is followed by another flowing-out, etc. It is a seemingly endless cycle. When the Great Breath breathes out, a universe appears. When it inhales, the universe disappears, only to be followed by another breathing-out, and another universe. This seemingly endless cycle is a basic Theosophical teaching.

Jim, I see Involution and Evolution as concurrent processes, with Involution (spirit into matter) prevaling on the downward arc, and Evolution (matter into spirit) prevailing on the upward. Both are cyclic processes occuring within the Great Breath.

thanks all, so "a current of efflux" ( in occult meaning) is the Evolution (matter into spirit).
Jim B.

Nick the Pilot,

You asked me the question on Dec 28. Strange, I have subscribed to this topic but I didn't received any notification since around Dec 27! I just checked, I'm still subscribed.

Anyway, yes I think (repeat, I think :D ) I know the concept of Anatta. Your subsequent postings and the article someone recommended after your post is also helpful.

Thanks

YS,

Thanks for your reply. I was just interested in hearing your understanding of the relationship of Anatta with reincarnation.

YS wrote:

And Nick answered:

But in fact HPB did speak about reincarnation as an exception in Isis:

However, there is no contradiction with later teachings. HPB was talking about a theory held at that time by some Spiritualists, that is, the reincarnation of the personality—the astral monad—which is indeed an exception. Sometimes (for example when the person dies being still a baby, or in the case of black magicians) the same astral and mental bodies of the previous personality will take a new body. That is a personal reincarnation. Usually, however, the personal vehicles (physical, emotional and mental) disintegrate and the Individuality reincarnates in a new personality. HPB explained that in the following article: http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/Is...incarnation.htm

The case of this book by Hans TenDam is—like what happened with the "theosophical" concept of races in Wikipedia—another example of people who, without knowing enough Theosophy, take isolated excerpts and make misleading judgments. I think we should post this kind of information in the proper places. Is there any website where we could write a criticism on this book?

Pablo,

Let me summarize your ideas. At the end of a reincarnation, a person sloughs off their physical body. Eventually they also lose their astral boady and lower mental body. The part that travels from reincarnation to reincarnation is the Reincarnating Ego.

There are rare instances where the same astral body is kept from one reincarnation to the next, but, again, this is rare.

Regarding websites where we could write a criticism of TenDam's book, there is no one single clearinghouse for such information on the Internet. All we can do is post our ideas here on this Forum, on your webpage, on webpages like Wikipedia, etc. I would also like to say that I have seen some very anti-Theosophical information on the Internet — some people on the Internet try to tear down Theosophy as much as they can. There is not much we can do about it.

The best thing we can do is keep posting good ideas and good information here on this Forum. By the way, your posts on this Forum have been very helpful and informative about Theosophy, and all of us appreciate reading your posts!

Hi,

So happy to read the clarification Pablo provided and which Nick the Pilot summarized. Thanks a lot!

TenDam makes many personal judgements and comments in his book and I find him sometimes incoherent (i.e. not sure what his point is). But while he had quoted HPB from Isis out of context (as Pablo points out), he also quoted quite a bit from Theosophical literature plainly; so I guess many people may also come to learn about Theosophy through his book and want to know more, which is not a bad thing!

The one thing I find interesting about his book is, while many research works have been carried out on reincarnation, his is one that tried to summarize, compare and contrast these works, and yes adding his personal judgements and comments along the way!

Thanks again.
P.S. It looks like I am receiving notification of replies again.