Title: Rebirth in Animal Forms
Nicholas - February 7, 2008 05:30 PM (GMT)
While it is true that humans do not "become" animals in full, there is still truth in the Oriental idea of rebirth as an animal. Here is one quote from HPB; from CW 1, 294-5:
| QUOTE |
| The Buddhists and Brahmanists teach that the man’s individuality is not secured until he has passed through and become disembarrassed of... the final vestige of earthly taint. Hence their doctrine of the metempsychosis, so ridiculed and so utterly misunderstood by our greatest Orientalists. Even the physicists teach us that the particles composing physical man are, by evolution, reworked by nature into every variety of inferior physical form. Why, then, are the Buddhists unphilosophical or even unscientific, in affirming that the semi-material skandhas of the astral man (his very ego, up to the point of final purification) are appropriated to the evolution of minor astral forms (which, of course, enter into the purely physical bodies of animals) as fast as he throws them off in his progress toward Nirvâna? Therefore, we may correctly say, that so long as the disembodied man is throwing off a single particle of these skandhas, a portion of him is being reincarnated in the bodies of plants and animals. And if he, the disembodied astral man, be so material that “Demeter” cannot find even one spark of the pneuma to carry up to the “divine power,” then the individual, so to speak, is dissolved, piece by piece, into the crucible of evolution, or, as the Hindus allegorically illustrate it, he passes thousands of years in the bodies of impure animals. |
sara morgan - March 30, 2008 08:34 AM (GMT)
I read somewhere that the masters sometimes go in to the body of an animal to experience and get a feel of what it is like. If this is true all the more reason to treat our animal friends with love kindness and compassion which I have done all my life.
ChristianMyst - March 30, 2008 05:07 PM (GMT)
Nicholas,
Man has already gone though his animal stage, yes? Or, perhaps there are varying opinions. There is a "slight" dance about this subject, or at least it seems to be surpressed or minimalized, but when experienced ever so slightly over a broad library of books, I have the sense that we have gone through ALL the kingdoms.
Therefore, it seems "odd," if that would be the right word, that one could revert. In fact, I thought H.P.B. has indicated we could not. I'll have to figure out where I read something to that effect.
Further still, we have an individualized soul and ego personality; something above the supposed group soul of all animals, and indeed, life lower than Man. I think this supports the concept that we have already been there, done that.
PERHAPS, though, the concept refers to the throwing off of particles of the skandhas, as you say, AFTER man has no need for energies pertaining to any of his bodies below Spirit. That makes some sense to me. As did "God," our fragmentary sparks become like monads to other forms. Not sure if that sounds like a logical extension of as-above, so-below, or is some romanticized approach to explaining our remains in a respectful way. It may be irrelevant, in that, isn't the dissolved matter supposed to go into the greater pool of like matter, as per H.P.B.?
Interesting.
Sara,
I've heard of similar things, and that Adepts and above might simply choose from some purpose to take that form. However, I wonder if it is not some artificial, and temporary choice, where there is no evolution related to the form.
Christian
Man has already gone though his animal stage, yes? Or, perhaps there are varying opinions. There is a "slight" dance about this subject, or at least it seems to be surpressed or minimalized, but when experienced ever so slightly over a broad library of books, I have the sense that we have gone through ALL the kingdoms.
Therefore, it seems "odd," if that would be the right word, that one could revert. In fact, I thought H.P.B. has indicated we could not. I'll have to figure out where I read something to that effect.
Further still, we have an individualized soul and ego personality; something above the supposed group soul of all animals, and indeed, life lower than Man. I think this supports the concept that we have already been there, done that.
PERHAPS, though, the concept refers to the throwing off of particles of the skandhas, as you say, AFTER man has no need for energies pertaining to any of his bodies below Spirit. That makes some sense to me. As did "God," our fragmentary sparks become like monads to other forms. Not sure if that sounds like a logical extension of as-above, so-below, or is some romanticized approach to explaining our remains in a respectful way. It may be irrelevant, in that, isn't the dissolved matter supposed to go into the greater pool of like matter, as per H.P.B.?
Interesting.
Sara,
I've heard of similar things, and that Adepts and above might simply choose from some purpose to take that form. However, I wonder if it is not some artificial, and temporary choice, where there is no evolution related to the form.
Christian
Nicholas - March 30, 2008 05:27 PM (GMT)
What HPB & the Oriental religions are talking about occurs after the death of a person. As the physical & other subtle bodies disintegrate, the life atoms seek similar beings to join with. Much of our lower nature is animalistic or vegetative, so when the living connection with the Higher Self is broken at death, they naturally gravitate to animals or plants.
This "rebirth as an animal" is just an example of how an exoteric nonsensical sounding notion, can be true, if looked at correctly.
Sara: The Adepts can be aware of the consciousness of any animal and thus know from their point of view, but they do not need to "take" the form.
Sorcerers and shamans do somehow "take" or live within an animal form.
This "rebirth as an animal" is just an example of how an exoteric nonsensical sounding notion, can be true, if looked at correctly.
Sara: The Adepts can be aware of the consciousness of any animal and thus know from their point of view, but they do not need to "take" the form.
Sorcerers and shamans do somehow "take" or live within an animal form.
angus - April 1, 2008 01:25 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Nicholas @ Mar 30 2008, 05:27 PM) |
| This "rebirth as an animal" is just an example of how an exoteric nonsensical sounding notion, can be true, if looked at correctly. The Adepts can be aware of the consciousness of any animal and thus know from their point of view, but they do not need to "take" the form. Sorcerers and shamans do somehow "take" or live within an animal form. |
Hi Nicholas. Interesting comments regarding death, our lower natures, rebirth as an animal, and penetrating into ideas to uncover the deeper truth. Some thoughts in there were new for me; the rest I agree with completely. And regarding your animal form comments: Are Adepts then looked at as having attained a higher stage of initiation than Shamans, given the differences you outlined? Or does Theosophy even speak of individual developmental capabilities in such a structured and linear manner?
Nick the Pilot - April 1, 2008 03:56 AM (GMT)
Hi everybody!
It is fascinating to consider if humans reincarnate as animals. (I am talking of reincarnation as a normal happening, not as an unusal occurance due to special circumstances.)
I would like to advance the idea that human do not normally reincarnate as animals, but that it is their normal nature to only reincarnate as humans. Here are a few quotes I gathered on the subject.
---
...esoteric philosophy teaches that nature never proceeding backward in her evolutionary progress, once that man has evoluted from every kind of lower forms – the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms – into the human form, he can never become an animal except morally, hence – metaphorically.
-HPB
http://www.theosophy.org/Blavatsky/Article...nAndSpirits.htm
---
In calling the animal "Soulless," it is not depriving the beast, from the humblest to the highest species, of a "soul," but only of a conscious surviving Ego-soul, i.e., that principle which survives after a man, and reincarnates in a like man. The animal has an astral body, that survives the physical form for a short period; but its (animal) Monad does not re-incarnate in the same, but in a higher species, and has no "Devachan" of course. It has the seeds of all the human principles in itself, but they are latent.
(SD Vol. II p.196 footnote)
---
The ancients sometimes taught that these gross astral forms, having a natural affinity for the lower types, such as the animal kingdom, gravitated gradually in that direction and were at last absorbed on the astral plane of animals, for which they furnished the sidereal particles needed by them as well as by man. But this in no sense meant that the man himself went into an animal, for before this result had eventuated the ego might have already re-entered life with a new physical and astral body.
W. Q. Judge
http://www.blavatsky.net/judge/arts/Transm...tionOfSouls.htm
---
Looking at the question in the light of Theosophical theories, we see that a wide distinction exists between man and animals. Man reincarnates as man because he has got to the top of the present scale of evolution. He cannot go back, for Manas is too much developed. He has a Devachan because he is a conscious thinker. Animals cannot have Manas so much developed, and so cannot be self-conscious in the sense that man is. Besides all this, the animal kingdom, being lower, has the impulse still to rise to higher forms. But here we have the distinct statement by the Adepts through H.P.B. that while possibly animals may rise higher in their own kingdom they cannot in this evolution rise to the human stage, as we have reached the middle or turning-point in the fourth round. On this point H.P.B. has, in the second volume of the Secret Doctrine (first ed.) at p. 196, a foot note as follows:
In calling the animals "Soulless," it is not depriving the beast, from the humblest to the highest species, of a "soul," but only of a conscious surviving Ego-soul, i.e., that principle which survives after a man and reincarnates in a like man.
The animal has an astral body that survives the physical form for a short period; but its (animal) Monad does not reincarnate in the same, but in a higher species, and has no "Devachan" of course. It has the seeds of all the human principles in itself, but they are latent.
W. Q. Judge
http://www.blavatsky.net/judge/arts/Reinca...onOfAnimals.htm
---
The one difference between theosophy and Buddhism on the after death states and rebirth is in the question: what do we get reincarnated as? The older translations of the Pali Canon do suggest that Buddha said that we get reincarnated as animals. Newer translations by Morris Walsh on the other hand suggest that the word that was translated as ‘animal’ could also be translated as ‘brute’. A brute can be a human being who is not very refined, focuses on eating, drinking, getting wealth – instead of on liberation, culture, philosophy and meditation.
From this we can conclude that theosophical writers could simply be right: the Buddha may well have meant to say that people do only come back as people, but not as the best of people if they develop selfish thoughts and actions.
katinkahesselink.net
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/after-death.html
It is fascinating to consider if humans reincarnate as animals. (I am talking of reincarnation as a normal happening, not as an unusal occurance due to special circumstances.)
I would like to advance the idea that human do not normally reincarnate as animals, but that it is their normal nature to only reincarnate as humans. Here are a few quotes I gathered on the subject.
---
...esoteric philosophy teaches that nature never proceeding backward in her evolutionary progress, once that man has evoluted from every kind of lower forms – the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms – into the human form, he can never become an animal except morally, hence – metaphorically.
-HPB
http://www.theosophy.org/Blavatsky/Article...nAndSpirits.htm
---
In calling the animal "Soulless," it is not depriving the beast, from the humblest to the highest species, of a "soul," but only of a conscious surviving Ego-soul, i.e., that principle which survives after a man, and reincarnates in a like man. The animal has an astral body, that survives the physical form for a short period; but its (animal) Monad does not re-incarnate in the same, but in a higher species, and has no "Devachan" of course. It has the seeds of all the human principles in itself, but they are latent.
(SD Vol. II p.196 footnote)
---
The ancients sometimes taught that these gross astral forms, having a natural affinity for the lower types, such as the animal kingdom, gravitated gradually in that direction and were at last absorbed on the astral plane of animals, for which they furnished the sidereal particles needed by them as well as by man. But this in no sense meant that the man himself went into an animal, for before this result had eventuated the ego might have already re-entered life with a new physical and astral body.
W. Q. Judge
http://www.blavatsky.net/judge/arts/Transm...tionOfSouls.htm
---
Looking at the question in the light of Theosophical theories, we see that a wide distinction exists between man and animals. Man reincarnates as man because he has got to the top of the present scale of evolution. He cannot go back, for Manas is too much developed. He has a Devachan because he is a conscious thinker. Animals cannot have Manas so much developed, and so cannot be self-conscious in the sense that man is. Besides all this, the animal kingdom, being lower, has the impulse still to rise to higher forms. But here we have the distinct statement by the Adepts through H.P.B. that while possibly animals may rise higher in their own kingdom they cannot in this evolution rise to the human stage, as we have reached the middle or turning-point in the fourth round. On this point H.P.B. has, in the second volume of the Secret Doctrine (first ed.) at p. 196, a foot note as follows:
In calling the animals "Soulless," it is not depriving the beast, from the humblest to the highest species, of a "soul," but only of a conscious surviving Ego-soul, i.e., that principle which survives after a man and reincarnates in a like man.
The animal has an astral body that survives the physical form for a short period; but its (animal) Monad does not reincarnate in the same, but in a higher species, and has no "Devachan" of course. It has the seeds of all the human principles in itself, but they are latent.
W. Q. Judge
http://www.blavatsky.net/judge/arts/Reinca...onOfAnimals.htm
---
The one difference between theosophy and Buddhism on the after death states and rebirth is in the question: what do we get reincarnated as? The older translations of the Pali Canon do suggest that Buddha said that we get reincarnated as animals. Newer translations by Morris Walsh on the other hand suggest that the word that was translated as ‘animal’ could also be translated as ‘brute’. A brute can be a human being who is not very refined, focuses on eating, drinking, getting wealth – instead of on liberation, culture, philosophy and meditation.
From this we can conclude that theosophical writers could simply be right: the Buddha may well have meant to say that people do only come back as people, but not as the best of people if they develop selfish thoughts and actions.
katinkahesselink.net
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/after-death.html
Nicholas - April 1, 2008 04:25 AM (GMT)
There is no question that the real human, the soul which reincarnates, never incarnates within an animal body.
The point here is that our lower nature, which is part of us and during life is more often the human than that rare ray from the soul, does gravitate into animal & plant bodies after death and, in that sense, man is reborn as an animal or plant.
The point here is that our lower nature, which is part of us and during life is more often the human than that rare ray from the soul, does gravitate into animal & plant bodies after death and, in that sense, man is reborn as an animal or plant.
| QUOTE |
| HPB: Science teaches, indeed, that the material molecules that compose the physical body of man are, by the process of evolution, replaced by Nature into lower physical forms. Well, the Buddhists say the very same in regard to the particles of the astral body; they assert that the semi-material groups of the périsprit are appropriated to the evolution of lower astral forms and unite with them according to their degree of refinement. Consequently, so long as a discarnate man contains a single particle of these skandhas, some parts of his périsprit will have to enter the astral bodies of plants or animals. So if the astral man is composed of such material that Demeter cannot find a particle of spirit, the individual is dissolved, bit by bit, in the crucible of evolution. This is what the Hindus typify by a period of a thousand years spent in the impure bodies of animals. Theosophists are in essential agreement with this idea. |
| QUOTE |
| HPB: The esoteric meaning of the Laws of Manu (Chap. XII, 3 and 55), of the verses that state that “every act, either mental, verbal or corporeal, bears good or evil fruit [Karma], the various transmigrations of men [not souls] through the highest, middle, and lowest stages, are produced by his actions”; and again that “A Brahman-killer enters the body of a dog, bear, ass, camel, goat, sheep, bird, &c.,” bears no reference to the human Ego, but only to the atoms of his body, of his lower triad and his fluidic emanations... Instead of facilitating through a virtuous life and spiritual aspirations the mutual union of the Buddhi and the Manas, he condemns by his own evil acts every atom of his lower principles to become attracted and drawn in virtue of the magnetic affinity, thus created by his passions, into the forming bodies of lower animals or brutes. |
| QUOTE |
| Angus: Are Adepts then looked at as having attained a higher stage of initiation than Shamans, given the differences you outlined? Or does Theosophy even speak of individual developmental capabilities in such a structured and linear manner? |
Yes, I would think so, in most cases. Shamans usually serve the personal desires of themselves and their tribe only. But if the Shaman serves the tribe of humanity in a more spiritual manner they could be Initiates. No, the original Theosophy of HPB & her gurus does not have a tidy structure of initiates.
angus - April 1, 2008 11:49 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Nicholas @ Apr 1 2008, 04:25 AM) |
| Shamans usually serve the personal desires of themselves and their tribe only. But if the Shaman serves the tribe of humanity in more spiritual manner they could be Initiates. |
Interesting, I hadn't thought of service to humanity as an integral aspect of an Adept's inner development and life purpose. Your answer makes sense to me, thanks. And it's odd in that I myself have next to no interest in serving humanity. The idea in fact stirs up some pretty strong antipathetical feelings. Guess I won't be achieving Adept status any time soon! :)
angus - April 1, 2008 12:24 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Nick the Pilot @ Apr 1 2008, 03:56 AM) |
| It is fascinating to consider if humans reincarnate as animals. (I am talking of reincarnation as a normal happening, not as an unusal occurance due to special circumstances.) I would like to advance the idea that human do not normally reincarnate as animals, but that it is their normal nature to only reincarnate as humans. |
Hi Nick. So would the Hindu belief that we reincarnate as animals be considered a materialistic perversion of the original esoteric understandings - in the same way Christians speak of heaven, hell, etc? Or are these reincarnation beliefs part of the original teachings of Hinduism?
I suppose I'm asking because I question if physical-spiritual reality has perhaps shifted and changed over the millenia. Which would make it difficult to say from our 21st century perspective that this or that reality and truth, as it pertains to the past, is correct or incorrect.
I've read elsewhere for example that dinosaurs were a manifestation of the lower human soul traits which had to be filtered out, before the human soul was ready and able to take physical form and incarnate on Earth. In other words, with that particular scenario, one could say that human beings, at one point in their spiritual-soul evolution and development, did in fact incarnate as animals. No longer relevent now, yes, but truthful nevertheless.
Nick the Pilot - April 1, 2008 06:08 PM (GMT)
Angus,
"...would the Hindu belief that we reincarnate as animals be considered a materialistic perversion of the original esoteric understandings...."
--> I would say so.
"...in the same way Christians speak of heaven, hell, etc?"
--> This is a whole different topic. Theosophy talks about a Devachan and Avichi, which correspond to Heaven and Hell.
"Or are these reincarnation beliefs part of the original teachings of Hinduism?"
--> It is a basic Theosophical contention that most of the main religions of the world started out as accurate reflections of the Ancient Wisdom, but became corrupt as the centuries went by.
"I suppose I'm asking because I question if physical-spiritual reality has perhaps shifted and changed over the millenia."
--> I think there has been very little change in physical-spiritual reality in the last 10,000 years. (One Theosophical timeline places Hindu culture as appearing about 10,000 years ago. It has been said that the Hindu culture was the first sub-race of our Fifth Root-Race.)
"I've read elsewhere for example that dinosaurs were a manifestation of the lower human soul traits which had to be filtered out, before the human soul was ready and able to take physical form and incarnate on Earth."
--> I see the dinosaurs as being something completely different. Theosophy talks about horrible monsters that were born at the beginning of the appearance of the human race on Earth. It is possible that dinosaurs were forms of pre-human incarnations that got out of control. However, I do not remember seeing the specific question of dinosaurs being addressed in Theosophical literature, only "abominations."
"...one could say that human beings, at one point in their spiritual-soul evolution and development, did in fact incarnate as animals."
--> Before present-days humans appeared on Earth, there were many pre-human abominations that appeared. Theosophical literature spends a fair amount of space describing these pre-human abomination incarnations.
"...would the Hindu belief that we reincarnate as animals be considered a materialistic perversion of the original esoteric understandings...."
--> I would say so.
"...in the same way Christians speak of heaven, hell, etc?"
--> This is a whole different topic. Theosophy talks about a Devachan and Avichi, which correspond to Heaven and Hell.
"Or are these reincarnation beliefs part of the original teachings of Hinduism?"
--> It is a basic Theosophical contention that most of the main religions of the world started out as accurate reflections of the Ancient Wisdom, but became corrupt as the centuries went by.
"I suppose I'm asking because I question if physical-spiritual reality has perhaps shifted and changed over the millenia."
--> I think there has been very little change in physical-spiritual reality in the last 10,000 years. (One Theosophical timeline places Hindu culture as appearing about 10,000 years ago. It has been said that the Hindu culture was the first sub-race of our Fifth Root-Race.)
"I've read elsewhere for example that dinosaurs were a manifestation of the lower human soul traits which had to be filtered out, before the human soul was ready and able to take physical form and incarnate on Earth."
--> I see the dinosaurs as being something completely different. Theosophy talks about horrible monsters that were born at the beginning of the appearance of the human race on Earth. It is possible that dinosaurs were forms of pre-human incarnations that got out of control. However, I do not remember seeing the specific question of dinosaurs being addressed in Theosophical literature, only "abominations."
"...one could say that human beings, at one point in their spiritual-soul evolution and development, did in fact incarnate as animals."
--> Before present-days humans appeared on Earth, there were many pre-human abominations that appeared. Theosophical literature spends a fair amount of space describing these pre-human abomination incarnations.
jon_k - April 1, 2008 06:30 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (angus @ Apr 1 2008, 06:24 AM) |
| ..one could say that human beings, at one point in their spiritual-soul evolution and development, did in fact incarnate as animals. |
Welcom, Angus
Theosophy has taught me..
As monads, we have existed as minerals, plants, animals, in all of the kingdoms in previous manvantaras. But "incarnate" would not be the correct term..
This is a "human" life wave, and we will be "human" throughout this manvantara. However, what "human" might be on the next globe in the chain, we are not sure.
Nick the Pilot - April 1, 2008 10:13 PM (GMT)
Jon,
Thank you for that clarification. Perhaps I was unclear. (Sometimes I cannot see the forest for the trees. I read Theosophical literature much of the time, and I sometimes assume that everyone else does too....)
The way I see it, an animal eventually evolves into a human. Once that happens, I do not think the human will be reborn again as an animal. I think I remember HPB saying that to do so would go against the flow of evolution. That makes sense to me.
Thank you for that clarification. Perhaps I was unclear. (Sometimes I cannot see the forest for the trees. I read Theosophical literature much of the time, and I sometimes assume that everyone else does too....)
The way I see it, an animal eventually evolves into a human. Once that happens, I do not think the human will be reborn again as an animal. I think I remember HPB saying that to do so would go against the flow of evolution. That makes sense to me.
jon_k - April 1, 2008 11:51 PM (GMT)
I think you're right, Nick. I think the WORST that can happen is that a monad would fall into avichi, only to begin as a "human" again in the next manvantara (or is it mahamanvantara?) with our "animals", while we go on to become ??
Nick the Pilot - April 2, 2008 07:58 AM (GMT)
Jon,
Manvantara refers to the 4.32 billion-year cycle our Earth is presently going through. I think the term Maha Manvantara refers to the 311 trillion-year cycle our Sun is presently going through. Some Theosophists say there is a cycle between planet-cycles and star-cycles called a Scheme, although other Theosophists disagree with such an idea.
What will we be doing, after we complete our present-day human cycle? I think we will become some form of Chohans, actively involved in helping the next human race (today's animals) evolve. I think we only exist for two reasons — to evolve, and to help others evolve.
Manvantara refers to the 4.32 billion-year cycle our Earth is presently going through. I think the term Maha Manvantara refers to the 311 trillion-year cycle our Sun is presently going through. Some Theosophists say there is a cycle between planet-cycles and star-cycles called a Scheme, although other Theosophists disagree with such an idea.
What will we be doing, after we complete our present-day human cycle? I think we will become some form of Chohans, actively involved in helping the next human race (today's animals) evolve. I think we only exist for two reasons — to evolve, and to help others evolve.
angus - April 2, 2008 11:30 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (jon_k @ Apr 1 2008, 06:30 PM) |
| Welcom, Angus. Theosophy has taught me.. As monads, we have existed as minerals, plants, animals, in all of the kingdoms in previous manvantaras. But "incarnate" would not be the correct term.. This is a "human" life wave, and we will be "human" throughout this manvantara. |
Hi jon, and thanks. Beautifully put (your comments). They immediately reminded me of a snippet from a poem by WB Yeats, who was a member of the Golden Dawn.
I See my life go drifting like a river
From change to change; I have been many things --
A green drop in the surge, a gleam of light
Upon a sword, a fir-tree on a hill,
An old slave grinding at a heavy quern,
A king sitting upon a chair of gold --
Thanks for your reply as well, Nick. Lots in there to ponder over.
jon_k - April 2, 2008 03:41 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (angus @ Apr 2 2008, 05:30 AM) |
| I See my life go drifting like a river From change to change; I have been many things -- A green drop in the surge, a gleam of light Upon a sword, a fir-tree on a hill, An old slave grinding at a heavy quern, A king sitting upon a chair of gold -- |
Angus, That is indeed a beautiful and insightful poem. Yeats was a Theosophist as well. He , AE (George Russell) and others published "The Irish Theosophist" for many years. A friend (who visits this board every now and then) did his master's thesis on Yeats as a Theosophist. Hope to see it published someday (hint, hint).
Nick the Pilot - April 2, 2008 05:35 PM (GMT)
Hi everybody!
Since we are on the topic of the evolution of consciousness to the human level and beyond, I thought I would share this picture from O Lanoo!, by Harvey Tordoff, p. 62. This is a beautiful pictorial representation of our journey through mineal, plant, animal, human, and beyond.
Since we are on the topic of the evolution of consciousness to the human level and beyond, I thought I would share this picture from O Lanoo!, by Harvey Tordoff, p. 62. This is a beautiful pictorial representation of our journey through mineal, plant, animal, human, and beyond.
ChristianMyst - April 3, 2008 02:27 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| The way I see it, an animal eventually evolves into a human. Once that happens, I do not think the human will be reborn again as an animal. |
I think of our consciousness having gone through this stage, and vegetable and mineral too. I feel there can be important meaning to those existences as well, and such is why certain people have a strong affinity with trees, or rocks, crystals and the like, or certain animals.
However, I see this as relative. There will come a time again, perhaps a distant manvantara in a future universe where we will again go through this relative stage between mineral and dyani/adept.
I think seven is a magic number moreso because it encapsulates this "set" of meaningful cycles, this pattern. It's like computer background wallpaper; when its cuttoff just right, an image can be replicated into perpetuity with the same balance.
If this helps, and if I am correct, theosophy tends to extract a snippet of a never-ending cycle which represents those spirials we can relate to, and which we see as mineral to dyani/adept. There would be a slight buffer between these too which are the elemental essence beginning of these "sets." I surmise as well, but have not so much documented evidence of such, that there would be some similar subset between this upper dyani/adept and the next elemental essence that starts another great cycle, too.
Ergo, we seem to follow a cyclical pattern that repeats itself across Universal changes, throughout eternity; and we derive the feeling of relatively greater accomplishment.
Unless God is looking to recreate himself, as some of H.P.B.s verbiage might suggest, and therefore, we are children, ... this will go on indefinetly, and we will only ever be [relatively] closer to the Absolute. Although some studies, and belief systems express something like a culmination, I am not seeing a theosophical nor divine reason for an ending/new and different beginning, unless God/the Absolute is a relative thing too.
ChristianMyst
PS: The picture was excellent.
sara morgan - April 23, 2008 09:54 PM (GMT)
I think the masters reincarnate to know what it is to be as an animal, to know the pain and suffering an animal has to go through to know the goal they are striving, to become one. I am so torn at what one must go through to feel the pain and suffering and pain.
Pablo - April 23, 2008 11:09 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ChristianMyst @ Apr 3 2008, 02:27 AM) |
| There will come a time again, perhaps a distant manvantara in a future universe where we will again go through this relative stage between mineral and dyani/adept. |
I don't think we can say human monads are going to incarnate in the lower kingdoms in the plain sense of the statement.
In the theosophical literature it is said that once the human stage is finished, the next step would be that of a Barishad (for the less evolved "post-human" monads) or the Agnishvatta (the more evolved Monads). The Barishads are the builders of the form, and apparently they need to pass through every form in the First Round of the following manvantara, in order to assimilate the new matter. But during the First Round forms are so subtle that we couldn't call them minerals, plants or animals, but their "ideal forms". I guess it is like the unconscious "recapitulation" every human fetus undergoes in the womb.
In the case of the Agnishvattas, they only incarnate in human beings to offer a bridge between the new human monad and the lower quaternary.
Besides, the identification of an Adept with any lower form of life takes place at the level of consciousness. Even a fairly advanced chela can blend his consciousness with that of the lower kingdoms. There seems to be no necessity of taking any lower physical form to do that.
DavidC - May 13, 2008 03:36 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE | ||
| There is no question that the real human, the soul which reincarnates, never incarnates within an animal body. The point here is that our lower nature, which is part of us and during life is more often the human than that rare ray from the soul, does gravitate into animal & plant bodies after death and, in that sense, man is reborn as an animal or plant.
[--Nicholas] |
I am trying to make sense of this and the previous post by Pablo. Of course it is clear human spirit & soul does not transmigrate or metempsychose into lower forms in this universe, or perhaps in any, but what if human spirit disappears into divine spirit and then that disappears (or would it not entirely?) Either that, or the possibility of part of one's consciousness, albeit lower, separating into a lower form sort of like part of the soul separating into avichi could lead one to have a bad day... since that is not avoidable I do not see how maybe both of the former are not avoidable.
Apparently in reincarnation or rebirth (one is voluntary; one involuntary) one remains in the same kingdom, but I have read transmigration and metempsychosis are with other kingdoms. Maybe that is what Nicholas was describing, or for some reason someone could voluntarily or involuntarily enter another body in a way besides reincarnation or rebirth.
Pablo - May 13, 2008 04:08 PM (GMT)
HPB is talking about the Kama-rupa in that quote, which is left behind by the soul at certain point in its post-mortem process. There is probably a kind of psychic magnetic link between the kama-rupa thus thrown off and the manasic consciousness. Therefore, when a non-refined kama-rupa is attracted to animals, it could have some effect upon the manasic entity. That is, I think, the origin of the concept of transmigration (which was also taught by Plato, for example).
Nick the Pilot - May 13, 2008 07:34 PM (GMT)
David,
We need to define terms, as used in Theosophy
"reincarnation" and "rebirth"
Reincarnation and rebirth are only differentiated by the idea of a soul. Reincarnation refers to a Reincarnating Ego ("soul") moving from incarnation to incarnation. Rebirth is a term used by Buddhists to distinguish and emphasize their belief that there is no soul. (According to Buddhists, we do not reincarnate, we are reborn, because there is no soul to reincarnate.) This is the only difference between the two words in Theosophy. Theosophists would not say that one is voluntary, and the other is involuntary.
"transmigration" and "metempsychosis"
These two words refer to humans being reborn into animals bodies. One Theosophical writer has also used one of these terms to refer to dead people who intentionally invade and occupy animal bodies between bonifide human incarnations.
You asked,
"...what if human spirit disappears into divine spirit and then that disappears (or would it not entirely?)"
--> Human spirit IS divine spirit, only in a more "condensed" form. Physical matter has been described as "solidified consciousness." Let me give you an imperfect analogy. Think of divine spirit as steam. Steam condenses into water, then freezes into ice. Think of human spirit as the ice. Being in the form of ice is necessary because some things can only be experienced by spirit while is in the form of ice. Once spirit no longer needs to be in the form of ice, it naturally reverts back to its true from, which is steam. The goal of human consciousness is to eventually return to its true form of divine consciousness. It will be a return.
"...part of one's consciousness, albeit lower, separating into a lower form sort of like part of the soul separating into avichi could lead one to have a bad day..."
--> I am not exactly sure what you are saying here. But it is possible for a person's lower principles to get cut off from their higher principles. This is what happens with terrible criminals, etc.
We need to define terms, as used in Theosophy
"reincarnation" and "rebirth"
Reincarnation and rebirth are only differentiated by the idea of a soul. Reincarnation refers to a Reincarnating Ego ("soul") moving from incarnation to incarnation. Rebirth is a term used by Buddhists to distinguish and emphasize their belief that there is no soul. (According to Buddhists, we do not reincarnate, we are reborn, because there is no soul to reincarnate.) This is the only difference between the two words in Theosophy. Theosophists would not say that one is voluntary, and the other is involuntary.
"transmigration" and "metempsychosis"
These two words refer to humans being reborn into animals bodies. One Theosophical writer has also used one of these terms to refer to dead people who intentionally invade and occupy animal bodies between bonifide human incarnations.
You asked,
"...what if human spirit disappears into divine spirit and then that disappears (or would it not entirely?)"
--> Human spirit IS divine spirit, only in a more "condensed" form. Physical matter has been described as "solidified consciousness." Let me give you an imperfect analogy. Think of divine spirit as steam. Steam condenses into water, then freezes into ice. Think of human spirit as the ice. Being in the form of ice is necessary because some things can only be experienced by spirit while is in the form of ice. Once spirit no longer needs to be in the form of ice, it naturally reverts back to its true from, which is steam. The goal of human consciousness is to eventually return to its true form of divine consciousness. It will be a return.
"...part of one's consciousness, albeit lower, separating into a lower form sort of like part of the soul separating into avichi could lead one to have a bad day..."
--> I am not exactly sure what you are saying here. But it is possible for a person's lower principles to get cut off from their higher principles. This is what happens with terrible criminals, etc.
DavidC - May 14, 2008 06:37 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| "...what if human spirit disappears into divine spirit and then that disappears (or would it not entirely?)" --> Human spirit IS divine spirit, only in a more "condensed" form. Physical matter has been described as "solidified consciousness." [...analogy...] The goal of human consciousness is to eventually return to its true form of divine consciousness. It will be a return. |
I am familiar with such ideas; of course from monad to bios lower consciousness is enclosed in and is part of the higher, but the higher is not necessarily the lower; i.e. the Logoi are not a monad. I do not recall if the Logoi will disappear, but this topic is more for another reincarnation topic than 'rebirth in animal forms.'
| QUOTE |
| "...part of one's consciousness, albeit lower, separating into a lower form sort of like part of the soul separating into avichi could lead one to have a bad day..." --> I am not exactly sure what you are saying here. But it is possible for a person's lower principles to get cut off from their higher principles. This is what happens with terrible criminals, etc. |
It was said a discarded consciousness sheath reincarnates in another form--but I think the sheath must disintegrate. If it reincarnates in something it sounds cut off from the higher principles!
Nick the Pilot - May 14, 2008 10:31 AM (GMT)
David,
You said,
"It was said a discarded consciousness sheath reincarnates in another form--but I think the sheath must disintegrate."
--> I do not remember that being said. I remember reading somewhere in Theosophical literature about people who become terrible crimminals. Their lower principles become disconnected from their higher principles, and the Monad gives up on that incarnation as a failure.
But the person's full-of-negativity lower principles do not just go away. When the person dies, the astral body continues to operate on the astral plane for some time. It is said these post-mortem astral bodies are horrible objects to see. As you have said, after a while, they just disintegrate. I think it would be impossible for such an entity to reincarnate.
You said,
"It was said a discarded consciousness sheath reincarnates in another form--but I think the sheath must disintegrate."
--> I do not remember that being said. I remember reading somewhere in Theosophical literature about people who become terrible crimminals. Their lower principles become disconnected from their higher principles, and the Monad gives up on that incarnation as a failure.
But the person's full-of-negativity lower principles do not just go away. When the person dies, the astral body continues to operate on the astral plane for some time. It is said these post-mortem astral bodies are horrible objects to see. As you have said, after a while, they just disintegrate. I think it would be impossible for such an entity to reincarnate.
jayr417 - May 16, 2008 06:44 PM (GMT)
at what point does a 20 million year old mineral have to opportunity to reincarnate into anything?? Maybe I'm still too green in the ideas of theosophy, but realistically, dirt, sand, rocks, ore, minerals, these things don't die. They transform over millions of years, but mechanical transformation is hardly reincarnation. It doesn't make much sense to me.
I have a lot easier time believing that plants and animals reincarnate, because these things live and die, and so their conscious and their matter are routinely separated.
Even still though if plant and animal reincarnate as "higher" life forms, but humans only reincarnate as humans, doesn't that insinuate that we are the highest form of life??
Isn't that a bit egotistical and quite presumptuous??
If everything is indeed, and human beings are at the top of the cycle, then wouldn't the next logical incarnation be the craw dad or fern or chunk of quarts or whatever resides at the bottom of the cycle??
Or perhaps a cycle where there is evolution, deevolution and reeveolution and so on, maybe one time around your a bobcat and the next time around your a jaguar.
Every time "you" come around to human consciousness your richer for the experience.
I have a lot easier time believing that plants and animals reincarnate, because these things live and die, and so their conscious and their matter are routinely separated.
Even still though if plant and animal reincarnate as "higher" life forms, but humans only reincarnate as humans, doesn't that insinuate that we are the highest form of life??
Isn't that a bit egotistical and quite presumptuous??
If everything is indeed, and human beings are at the top of the cycle, then wouldn't the next logical incarnation be the craw dad or fern or chunk of quarts or whatever resides at the bottom of the cycle??
Or perhaps a cycle where there is evolution, deevolution and reeveolution and so on, maybe one time around your a bobcat and the next time around your a jaguar.
Every time "you" come around to human consciousness your richer for the experience.
Nick the Pilot - May 16, 2008 08:49 PM (GMT)
Jay,
You asked,
"at what point does a 20 million year old mineral have to opportunity to reincarnate into anything??"
--> It will, many billions of years in the future.
"Maybe I'm still too green in the ideas of theosophy, but realistically, dirt, sand, rocks, ore, minerals, these things don't die."
--> And that fits exactly with Theosophical teachings. Many billions of years from now, all of those things will advance to the plant level of existence, where they will finally experience death.
"They transform over millions of years, but mechanical transformation is hardly reincarnation."
--> Physical matter is indeed in a process of transformation. No Theosophist says plants will experience reincarnation until they are ready, which will be (as I said before) billions of years in the future.
I want to make a distinction between Theosophy and some forms of Buddhism. Some forms of Buddhism teach that people can reincarnate as bugs, animals, etc. Theosophy teaches against such ideas.
"It doesn't make much sense to me."
--> The one thing I like about Theosophy is that it makes absolute, perfect, logical sense to me. I cannot see any flaw in the concept whatsoever. I think that, as you learn more about Theosophy, you will feel the same way. I have yet to come across one small thing in Theosophy that does not make sense.
As a matter of fact, Theosophy challenges you to question everything you hear in Theosophy. I do not think you will encounter any other philosophy that rejects dogmatism as much as Theosophy. Theososphy encourages you to ask the kinds of questions that you are asking. Ask more questions!
"I have a lot easier time believing that plants and animals reincarnate, because these things live and die, and so their conscious and their matter are routinely separated."
--> According to Theosophy, plants and animals die, and their consciousness returns later, to newer plants and animals, but I would not call that reincarnation.
Do you think Theosophists say that rocks and stones reincarnate? Theosophists do not.
"Even still though if plant and animal reincarnate as "higher" life forms, but humans only reincarnate as humans, doesn't that insinuate that we are the highest form of life??"
--> You are making a mistaken assumption that plants and animals are spiritually evolving to a higher form, while human are not. I see no reason to make this assumption. The answer to your question is no: Humans reincarnate as humans now, but will eventually stop reincarnating (and move up to the next level).
"If everything is indeed, and human beings are at the top of the cycle...."
--> Humans are not at the top of the cycle. Why do you think they are?
"Or perhaps a cycle where there is evolution, deevolution and reeveolution and so on...."
--> Spiritual evolution is a key Theosophical concept. Theosophy teaches against the idea of deevolution.
"Every time "you" come around to human consciousness your richer for the experience."
--> Yes. And, the point will come when we no longer need to exist at the human level of consciousness. At that time, we will move up to the next higher level.
You asked,
"at what point does a 20 million year old mineral have to opportunity to reincarnate into anything??"
--> It will, many billions of years in the future.
"Maybe I'm still too green in the ideas of theosophy, but realistically, dirt, sand, rocks, ore, minerals, these things don't die."
--> And that fits exactly with Theosophical teachings. Many billions of years from now, all of those things will advance to the plant level of existence, where they will finally experience death.
"They transform over millions of years, but mechanical transformation is hardly reincarnation."
--> Physical matter is indeed in a process of transformation. No Theosophist says plants will experience reincarnation until they are ready, which will be (as I said before) billions of years in the future.
I want to make a distinction between Theosophy and some forms of Buddhism. Some forms of Buddhism teach that people can reincarnate as bugs, animals, etc. Theosophy teaches against such ideas.
"It doesn't make much sense to me."
--> The one thing I like about Theosophy is that it makes absolute, perfect, logical sense to me. I cannot see any flaw in the concept whatsoever. I think that, as you learn more about Theosophy, you will feel the same way. I have yet to come across one small thing in Theosophy that does not make sense.
As a matter of fact, Theosophy challenges you to question everything you hear in Theosophy. I do not think you will encounter any other philosophy that rejects dogmatism as much as Theosophy. Theososphy encourages you to ask the kinds of questions that you are asking. Ask more questions!
"I have a lot easier time believing that plants and animals reincarnate, because these things live and die, and so their conscious and their matter are routinely separated."
--> According to Theosophy, plants and animals die, and their consciousness returns later, to newer plants and animals, but I would not call that reincarnation.
Do you think Theosophists say that rocks and stones reincarnate? Theosophists do not.
"Even still though if plant and animal reincarnate as "higher" life forms, but humans only reincarnate as humans, doesn't that insinuate that we are the highest form of life??"
--> You are making a mistaken assumption that plants and animals are spiritually evolving to a higher form, while human are not. I see no reason to make this assumption. The answer to your question is no: Humans reincarnate as humans now, but will eventually stop reincarnating (and move up to the next level).
"If everything is indeed, and human beings are at the top of the cycle...."
--> Humans are not at the top of the cycle. Why do you think they are?
"Or perhaps a cycle where there is evolution, deevolution and reeveolution and so on...."
--> Spiritual evolution is a key Theosophical concept. Theosophy teaches against the idea of deevolution.
"Every time "you" come around to human consciousness your richer for the experience."
--> Yes. And, the point will come when we no longer need to exist at the human level of consciousness. At that time, we will move up to the next higher level.
jayr417 - May 17, 2008 01:46 PM (GMT)
Thanks for giving me a little more insight into the teachings of theosophy.
I'm gonna keep flirting with Theosophy, but I must admit that I'm a bit disappointed with it. Its not at all what I thought it was.
I'm gonna keep flirting with Theosophy, but I must admit that I'm a bit disappointed with it. Its not at all what I thought it was.
Nick the Pilot - May 17, 2008 04:33 PM (GMT)
I am curious. What were you expecting?
jayr417 - May 17, 2008 05:03 PM (GMT)
I'm not sure what I expected honestly. I expected the top of the truck to smash into the overpass, but it passed safely and comfortably under it. If that makes any sense to you. I think I spoke too soon at any rate. I'm just gonna bury my expectations and take what I can away from my studies. Thats how I've gone about dissecting all of the other schools I've examined.
My appologies for the threadjacking.
My appologies for the threadjacking.
Pablo - May 17, 2008 08:16 PM (GMT)
Hi Jay,
If you want to test the value of Theosophy, I'd say you should read the literature. asking students as us is OK, but everyone of us are only that, students, and sometimes we may convey the teachings in not a suitable way, especially when it involves very abstract subjects. The answer Nick gave about the reincarnation of minerals can be seen as correct from certain perspective, but it is much more complex than as it sounds. I'm copying below a short article about the evolution of the mineral monad.
But what are you looking for in the study of Theosophy? If you are attracted to metaphysics, then you could read H. P. Blavatsky, if you are looking for a more systematic presentation of the teachings as a philosophical system, read A. Besant, among others, if your are looking for the practical and psychological aspect of Theosophy, read Sri Ram, Rohit Mehta, Radha Burnier, for example. There are more authors. Those are some of the ones I'm familiar to.
The article I'm copying was an answer to the following question, published in The Theosophist Sept., 1883:
Is the expression “a mineral monad” authorized by the Adepts? If so, what relation does the monad bear to the atom, or the molecule, of ordinary scientific hypothesis? And does each mineral monad eventually become a vegetable monad, and then at last a human being?
Any English expression that correctly translates the idea given is “authorized by the Adepts.” Why not? The term “monad” applies to the latent life in the mineral as much as it does to the life in the vegetable and the animal. The monogenist may take exception to time term and especially to the idea while the polygenist, unless he be a corporealist, may not. As to the other class of scientists, they would take objection to the idea even of a human monad, and call it “unscientific.” What relation does the monad bear to the atom? None whatever to the atom or molecule as in the scientific conception at present. It can neither be compared with the microscopic organism classed once among polygastric infusoria, and now regarded as vegetable and ranked among algae; nor is it quite the monas of the Peripatetics. Physically or constitutionally the mineral monad differs, of course, from that of the human monad, which is neither physical, nor can its constitution be rendered by chemical symbols and elements. In short, the mineral monad is one—the higher animal and human monads are countless. Otherwise, how could one account for and explain mathematically the evolutionary and spiral progress of the four kingdoms? The “monad” is the combination of the last two Principles in man, the 6th and the 7th, and, properly speaking, the term “human monad” applies only to the Spiritual Soul, not to its highest spiritual vivifying Principle. But since divorced from the latter the Spiritual Soul could have no existence, no being, it has thus been called. The composition (if such a word, which would shock an Asiatic, seems necessary to help European conception) of Buddhi or the 6th principle is made up of the essence of what you would call matter (or perchance a centre of Spiritual Force) in its 6th and 7th condition or state; the animating ATMAN being part of the ONE LIFE or Parabrahm. Now the Monadic Essence (if such a term be permitted) in the mineral, vegetable and animal, though the same throughout the series of cycles from the lowest elemental up to the Deva kingdom, yet differs in the scale of progression.
It would be very misleading to imagine a monad as a separate entity trailing its slow way in a distinct path through the lower kingdoms, and after an incalculable series of transmigrations flowering into a human being; in short, that the monad of a Humboldt dates back to the monad of an atom of hornblende. Instead of saying a mineral monad, the correcter phraseology in physical science which differentiates every atom, would of course have been to call it the Monad manifesting in that form of Prakriti called the mineral kingdom. Each atom or molecule of ordinary scientific hypotheses is not a particle of something, animated by a psychic something, destined to blossom as a man after ćons. But it is a concrete manifestation of the Universal Energy which itself has not yet become individualized: a sequential manifestation of the one Universal Monas. The ocean does not divide into its potential and constituent drops until the sweep of the life-impulse reaches the evolutionary stage of man-birth. The tendency towards segregation into individual monads is gradual, and in the higher animals comes almost to the point. The Peripatetics applied the word Monas to the whole Cosmos, in the pantheistic sense; and the Occultists while accepting this thought for convenience’ sake, distinguish the progressive stages of the evolution of the Concrete from the Abstract by terms of which the “Mineral Monad” is one. The term merely means that the tidal wave of spiritual evolution is passing through that arc of its circuit. The “Monadic Essence” begins to imperceptibly differentiate in the vegetable kingdom. As the monads are uncompounded things, as correctly defined by Leibnitz, it is the spiritual essence which vivifies them in their degrees of differentiation which constitutes properly the monad—not the atomic aggregation which is only the vehicle and the substance through which thrill the lower and higher degrees of intelligence.
And though, as shown by those plants that are known as sensitives, there are a few among them that may be regarded as possessing that conscious perception which is called by Leibnitz apperception, while the rest are endowed but with that internal activity which may be called vegetable nerve-sensation (to call it perception would be wrong), yet even the vegetable monad is still the Monad in its second degree of awakening sensation. Leibnitz came several times very near the truth, but defined the monadic evolution incorrectly and often greatly blundered. There are seven kingdoms. The first group comprises three degrees of elementals, or nascent centres of forces—from the first stage of the differentiation of Mulaprakriti to its third degree—i.e., from full unconsciousness to semi-perception; the second or higher group embraces the kingdoms from vegetable to man; the mineral kingdom thus forming the central or turning-point in the degrees of the “Monadic Essence”—considered as an Evoluting Energy. Three stages in the elemental side; the mineral kingdom ; three stages in the objective physical side—these are the seven links of the evolutionary chain. A descent of spirit into matter, equivalent to an ascent in physical evolution; a re-ascent from the deepest depths of materiality (the mineral) towards its status quo ante, with a corresponding dissipation of concrete organisms up to Nirvana—the vanishing point of differentiated matter. Perhaps a simple diagram will aid us:
The line A D represents the gradual obscuration of spirit as it passes into concrete matter; the point D indicates the evolutionary position of the mineral kingdom from its incipient (d) to its ultimate concretion (a); c, b, a, on the left-hand side of the figure, are the three stages of elemental evolution; i.e., the three successive stages passed by the spiritual impulse (through the elementals—of which little is permitted to be said) before they are imprisoned in the most concrete form of matter; and a, b, c, on the right-hand side, are the three stages of organic life, vegetable, animal, human. What is total obscuration of spirit is complete perfection of its polar antithesis—matter; and this idea is conveyed in the lines A D and D A. The arrows show the line of travel of the evolutionary impulse in entering its vortex and expanding again into the subjectivity of the ABSOLUTE. The central thickest line, d d, is the Mineral Kingdom.
The monogenists have had their day. Even believers in a personal god, like Professor Agassiz, teach now that, “There is a manifest progress in the succession of beings on the surface of the earth. The progress consists in an increasing similarity of the living fauna, and among the vertebrates especially, in the increasing resemblance to man. Man is the end towards which all the animal creation has tended from the first appearance of the first Palćozoic. fishes” (“Principles of Zoology,” pp. 205—6). The mineral “monad” is not an individuality latent, but an all-pervading Force which has for its Present vehicle matter in its lowest and most concrete terrestrial state ; in man the monad is fully developed, potential, and either passive or absolutely active, according to its vehicle, the five lower and more physical human principles. In the Deva kingdom it is fully liberated and in its highest state—but one degree lower than the ONE Universal Life. (The above diagram represents a logical section of the scheme of evolution, and not the evolutionary history of a unit of consciousness).
If you want to test the value of Theosophy, I'd say you should read the literature. asking students as us is OK, but everyone of us are only that, students, and sometimes we may convey the teachings in not a suitable way, especially when it involves very abstract subjects. The answer Nick gave about the reincarnation of minerals can be seen as correct from certain perspective, but it is much more complex than as it sounds. I'm copying below a short article about the evolution of the mineral monad.
But what are you looking for in the study of Theosophy? If you are attracted to metaphysics, then you could read H. P. Blavatsky, if you are looking for a more systematic presentation of the teachings as a philosophical system, read A. Besant, among others, if your are looking for the practical and psychological aspect of Theosophy, read Sri Ram, Rohit Mehta, Radha Burnier, for example. There are more authors. Those are some of the ones I'm familiar to.
The article I'm copying was an answer to the following question, published in The Theosophist Sept., 1883:
Is the expression “a mineral monad” authorized by the Adepts? If so, what relation does the monad bear to the atom, or the molecule, of ordinary scientific hypothesis? And does each mineral monad eventually become a vegetable monad, and then at last a human being?
Any English expression that correctly translates the idea given is “authorized by the Adepts.” Why not? The term “monad” applies to the latent life in the mineral as much as it does to the life in the vegetable and the animal. The monogenist may take exception to time term and especially to the idea while the polygenist, unless he be a corporealist, may not. As to the other class of scientists, they would take objection to the idea even of a human monad, and call it “unscientific.” What relation does the monad bear to the atom? None whatever to the atom or molecule as in the scientific conception at present. It can neither be compared with the microscopic organism classed once among polygastric infusoria, and now regarded as vegetable and ranked among algae; nor is it quite the monas of the Peripatetics. Physically or constitutionally the mineral monad differs, of course, from that of the human monad, which is neither physical, nor can its constitution be rendered by chemical symbols and elements. In short, the mineral monad is one—the higher animal and human monads are countless. Otherwise, how could one account for and explain mathematically the evolutionary and spiral progress of the four kingdoms? The “monad” is the combination of the last two Principles in man, the 6th and the 7th, and, properly speaking, the term “human monad” applies only to the Spiritual Soul, not to its highest spiritual vivifying Principle. But since divorced from the latter the Spiritual Soul could have no existence, no being, it has thus been called. The composition (if such a word, which would shock an Asiatic, seems necessary to help European conception) of Buddhi or the 6th principle is made up of the essence of what you would call matter (or perchance a centre of Spiritual Force) in its 6th and 7th condition or state; the animating ATMAN being part of the ONE LIFE or Parabrahm. Now the Monadic Essence (if such a term be permitted) in the mineral, vegetable and animal, though the same throughout the series of cycles from the lowest elemental up to the Deva kingdom, yet differs in the scale of progression.
It would be very misleading to imagine a monad as a separate entity trailing its slow way in a distinct path through the lower kingdoms, and after an incalculable series of transmigrations flowering into a human being; in short, that the monad of a Humboldt dates back to the monad of an atom of hornblende. Instead of saying a mineral monad, the correcter phraseology in physical science which differentiates every atom, would of course have been to call it the Monad manifesting in that form of Prakriti called the mineral kingdom. Each atom or molecule of ordinary scientific hypotheses is not a particle of something, animated by a psychic something, destined to blossom as a man after ćons. But it is a concrete manifestation of the Universal Energy which itself has not yet become individualized: a sequential manifestation of the one Universal Monas. The ocean does not divide into its potential and constituent drops until the sweep of the life-impulse reaches the evolutionary stage of man-birth. The tendency towards segregation into individual monads is gradual, and in the higher animals comes almost to the point. The Peripatetics applied the word Monas to the whole Cosmos, in the pantheistic sense; and the Occultists while accepting this thought for convenience’ sake, distinguish the progressive stages of the evolution of the Concrete from the Abstract by terms of which the “Mineral Monad” is one. The term merely means that the tidal wave of spiritual evolution is passing through that arc of its circuit. The “Monadic Essence” begins to imperceptibly differentiate in the vegetable kingdom. As the monads are uncompounded things, as correctly defined by Leibnitz, it is the spiritual essence which vivifies them in their degrees of differentiation which constitutes properly the monad—not the atomic aggregation which is only the vehicle and the substance through which thrill the lower and higher degrees of intelligence.
And though, as shown by those plants that are known as sensitives, there are a few among them that may be regarded as possessing that conscious perception which is called by Leibnitz apperception, while the rest are endowed but with that internal activity which may be called vegetable nerve-sensation (to call it perception would be wrong), yet even the vegetable monad is still the Monad in its second degree of awakening sensation. Leibnitz came several times very near the truth, but defined the monadic evolution incorrectly and often greatly blundered. There are seven kingdoms. The first group comprises three degrees of elementals, or nascent centres of forces—from the first stage of the differentiation of Mulaprakriti to its third degree—i.e., from full unconsciousness to semi-perception; the second or higher group embraces the kingdoms from vegetable to man; the mineral kingdom thus forming the central or turning-point in the degrees of the “Monadic Essence”—considered as an Evoluting Energy. Three stages in the elemental side; the mineral kingdom ; three stages in the objective physical side—these are the seven links of the evolutionary chain. A descent of spirit into matter, equivalent to an ascent in physical evolution; a re-ascent from the deepest depths of materiality (the mineral) towards its status quo ante, with a corresponding dissipation of concrete organisms up to Nirvana—the vanishing point of differentiated matter. Perhaps a simple diagram will aid us:
The line A D represents the gradual obscuration of spirit as it passes into concrete matter; the point D indicates the evolutionary position of the mineral kingdom from its incipient (d) to its ultimate concretion (a); c, b, a, on the left-hand side of the figure, are the three stages of elemental evolution; i.e., the three successive stages passed by the spiritual impulse (through the elementals—of which little is permitted to be said) before they are imprisoned in the most concrete form of matter; and a, b, c, on the right-hand side, are the three stages of organic life, vegetable, animal, human. What is total obscuration of spirit is complete perfection of its polar antithesis—matter; and this idea is conveyed in the lines A D and D A. The arrows show the line of travel of the evolutionary impulse in entering its vortex and expanding again into the subjectivity of the ABSOLUTE. The central thickest line, d d, is the Mineral Kingdom.
The monogenists have had their day. Even believers in a personal god, like Professor Agassiz, teach now that, “There is a manifest progress in the succession of beings on the surface of the earth. The progress consists in an increasing similarity of the living fauna, and among the vertebrates especially, in the increasing resemblance to man. Man is the end towards which all the animal creation has tended from the first appearance of the first Palćozoic. fishes” (“Principles of Zoology,” pp. 205—6). The mineral “monad” is not an individuality latent, but an all-pervading Force which has for its Present vehicle matter in its lowest and most concrete terrestrial state ; in man the monad is fully developed, potential, and either passive or absolutely active, according to its vehicle, the five lower and more physical human principles. In the Deva kingdom it is fully liberated and in its highest state—but one degree lower than the ONE Universal Life. (The above diagram represents a logical section of the scheme of evolution, and not the evolutionary history of a unit of consciousness).
jayr417 - May 18, 2008 02:17 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| Hi Jay, If you want to test the value of Theosophy, I'd say you should read the literature. asking students as us is OK, but everyone of us are only that, students, and sometimes we may convey the teachings in not a suitable way, especially when it involves very abstract subjects. The answer Nick gave about the reincarnation of minerals can be seen as correct from certain perspective, but it is much more complex than as it sounds. I'm copying below a short article about the evolution of the mineral monad. But what are you looking for in the study of Theosophy? If you are attracted to metaphysics, then you could read H. P. Blavatsky, if you are looking for a more systematic presentation of the teachings as a philosophical system, read A. Besant, among others, if your are looking for the practical and psychological aspect of Theosophy, read Sri Ram, Rohit Mehta, Radha Burnier, for example. There are more authors. Those are some of the ones I'm familiar to. |
I'm definately gonna read the literature, even if its only the the essential reads, I'll allow theosophy the opportunity to stand on its own in my mind.
As far as what I want from Theosophy, I really don't know what I want, only what I don't want. In the most general terms what I want is to learn something new. Anything that can help me be a better person so I can at the very least not add to the burden of my fellow man. What I don't want is another rigid iron box with just a narrow slat for me to view the world through. But i don't think thats really what you ment. I think at this point in my quest I'd be more open to the practical or philosophical. Metaphysics is somehing that I view with high skepticism at this point. It may come to change or it may not. Who knows? I dont.
Nick the Pilot - May 18, 2008 11:51 AM (GMT)
Jay,
You said,
"I really don't know what I want, only what I don't want."
--> I think you are looking for a philosophy or religion that fits your own personal belief. I hope you can find out whether Theosophy fits you. For example, I can think of several reasons why Christianity does not fit me.
There is a big benefit in finding a philosophy and it philosophical society that fits us. When we find such an organization, we can discuss deeply meaningful idea with people who think like us. Also, there is a benefit in being around people who think like us. When I go to Theosophical seminars, I enjoy being around people who think like I do. (I do not get this feeling when I attend any other organizations's religious meetings.)
I hope you find an organization that fits you. If it is Theosophy, great. If not, that is OK too. We are all in a search to find what fits us.
You said,
"I really don't know what I want, only what I don't want."
--> I think you are looking for a philosophy or religion that fits your own personal belief. I hope you can find out whether Theosophy fits you. For example, I can think of several reasons why Christianity does not fit me.
There is a big benefit in finding a philosophy and it philosophical society that fits us. When we find such an organization, we can discuss deeply meaningful idea with people who think like us. Also, there is a benefit in being around people who think like us. When I go to Theosophical seminars, I enjoy being around people who think like I do. (I do not get this feeling when I attend any other organizations's religious meetings.)
I hope you find an organization that fits you. If it is Theosophy, great. If not, that is OK too. We are all in a search to find what fits us.
jayr417 - May 18, 2008 02:23 PM (GMT)
Thats kinda what I want. I don't necessarily want like minded people, just TRUELY open minded people just to bounce ideas off of one another in order to make head way in a spiritual manner. I'm on the fence about theosophy, it seems like it can potentially provide that sort of environment, but really only time will tell.
mensagitat - May 18, 2008 11:26 PM (GMT)
It is difficult for me to provide an image of the difference between an animal monad and human monad.
There was a time when a man named Prout described all the elements being multiples of hydrogen. When this did not add up, the theory was discarded. When they discovered the existence of isotopes; an element, consisting of two elements having the same chemical properties, but possessing different atomic weights, that is when it finally was accepted. But, now we had people believing that matter was the underlying foundation of everything.
Of course, now we know that hydrogen, which is a proton orbited by an electron, the most basic element, can be broken down even further, i.e., quarks, gluons, photons, et al.
I want to make a supposition that what may be the most sublime essence reaching near proximity to, or at least in the general direction toward that pinnacle of perfection, the primordial Cause, can perceivably be described as capable of fitting inside a Monad, a difference between an animal monad and human monad might now be easier to grasp. A lot more content in the latter.
I see it as possible that a human who has reached immense proportion in regard to evil, and subsequently finds himself in Avichi, may after many immediate rebirths, with never a respite between death and rebirth, eventually find the form of a beast more in the nature of his character. I don't know any other reason why a human would go backwards. When I am reborn, I will remember every physical atom that I used in my previous life. Along with their jiva.
There was a time when a man named Prout described all the elements being multiples of hydrogen. When this did not add up, the theory was discarded. When they discovered the existence of isotopes; an element, consisting of two elements having the same chemical properties, but possessing different atomic weights, that is when it finally was accepted. But, now we had people believing that matter was the underlying foundation of everything.
Of course, now we know that hydrogen, which is a proton orbited by an electron, the most basic element, can be broken down even further, i.e., quarks, gluons, photons, et al.
I want to make a supposition that what may be the most sublime essence reaching near proximity to, or at least in the general direction toward that pinnacle of perfection, the primordial Cause, can perceivably be described as capable of fitting inside a Monad, a difference between an animal monad and human monad might now be easier to grasp. A lot more content in the latter.
I see it as possible that a human who has reached immense proportion in regard to evil, and subsequently finds himself in Avichi, may after many immediate rebirths, with never a respite between death and rebirth, eventually find the form of a beast more in the nature of his character. I don't know any other reason why a human would go backwards. When I am reborn, I will remember every physical atom that I used in my previous life. Along with their jiva.
Nick the Pilot - May 19, 2008 12:29 AM (GMT)
mensagitat,
I think the difference between an animal monad and human monad is that the human monad has had several more billion years experience. This several billion years' head start has allowed it to advance to a level well above that of animal.
You said,
"I don't know any other reason why a human would go backwards."
--> We have free will. Unfortunately, people are free to choose the wrong path. I believe that a choice to work towards Enlightenment (and go through all of the hard work that it requires) is a choice that we must make completely of our own free will. When I think about it, I do not see how the system could be set up any differently.
I think the difference between an animal monad and human monad is that the human monad has had several more billion years experience. This several billion years' head start has allowed it to advance to a level well above that of animal.
You said,
"I don't know any other reason why a human would go backwards."
--> We have free will. Unfortunately, people are free to choose the wrong path. I believe that a choice to work towards Enlightenment (and go through all of the hard work that it requires) is a choice that we must make completely of our own free will. When I think about it, I do not see how the system could be set up any differently.
mensagitat - May 19, 2008 01:31 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Nick the Pilot @ May 19 2008, 12:29 AM) |
| mensagitat, I think the difference between an animal monad and human monad is that the human monad has had several more billion years experience. This several billion years' head start has allowed it to advance to a level well above that of animal. You said, "I don't know any other reason why a human would go backwards." --> We have free will. Unfortunately, people are free to choose the wrong path. I believe that a choice to work towards Enlightenment (and go through all of the hard work that it requires) is a choice that we must make completely of our own free will. When I think about it, I do not see how the system could be set up any differently. |
I suppose you're right. It seems to me it is giving up will to the senses. As far as Will is concerned, I certainly would be happy to possess more of an accord and concord with it. I only have relative free will.
Harvey - August 19, 2008 02:51 PM (GMT)
This is a big forum and I am still finding my way around, so I have only just noticed the illustration posted by Nick on April 2. I thought I should give credit where it is due. I wrote the book O Lanoo! but the illustrations are by my old friend Nina O’Connell. She is not a theosophist, so she was unencumbered by preconceptions. She simply meditated after reading each stanza. The illustrations came out of the meditations.
Some of those who believe in reincarnation mix the concept with retributional karma, but I think reincarnation is more about evolution, a logical progression. We don’t leap about from human to animal and back in some bizarre reward and punishment program. Human karma has to be worked out in human incarnations. We would find it very difficult if we were reborn into creatures with less awareness.
Some of those who believe in reincarnation mix the concept with retributional karma, but I think reincarnation is more about evolution, a logical progression. We don’t leap about from human to animal and back in some bizarre reward and punishment program. Human karma has to be worked out in human incarnations. We would find it very difficult if we were reborn into creatures with less awareness.
Nick the Pilot - August 19, 2008 05:13 PM (GMT)
Harvey,
There is a theory that only humans can create karma — that animals and post-human beings (like Buddhas) cannot create karma. The idea makes sense to me. If this is true, then it makes sense to me that only humans can 'burn off' bad karma as well as making new, good karma. If so, it makes sense to me that all of this must be done only while we are in human bodies. This adds to my belief that humans never reincarnate as animals.
To me, this is also a lesson in learning to think for ourselves, instead of blindly accepting fundamentalistic dogma. I am dismayed how the belief that humans reincarnate as animals is so widespread in Buddhism. I am further dismayed that Buddhists do not even think about it, to see if it makes sense. One thing HPB taught us is that everything we believe has to make sense, and if there is an idea in our belief system that does not make sense, it should be thrown out the door on its ear.
That illustration from your book is such a great illustration, I though I would share it here again. It really symbolizes our entire Path through the physical world. Tell Nina, "Nice job!"
There is a theory that only humans can create karma — that animals and post-human beings (like Buddhas) cannot create karma. The idea makes sense to me. If this is true, then it makes sense to me that only humans can 'burn off' bad karma as well as making new, good karma. If so, it makes sense to me that all of this must be done only while we are in human bodies. This adds to my belief that humans never reincarnate as animals.
To me, this is also a lesson in learning to think for ourselves, instead of blindly accepting fundamentalistic dogma. I am dismayed how the belief that humans reincarnate as animals is so widespread in Buddhism. I am further dismayed that Buddhists do not even think about it, to see if it makes sense. One thing HPB taught us is that everything we believe has to make sense, and if there is an idea in our belief system that does not make sense, it should be thrown out the door on its ear.
That illustration from your book is such a great illustration, I though I would share it here again. It really symbolizes our entire Path through the physical world. Tell Nina, "Nice job!"
mensagitat - October 6, 2008 01:36 AM (GMT)
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/et/et-19.htm
The fifth word is Transmigration: a word which has been grossly misunderstood in the modern Occident, which has also been the fate, by the way, of the next word, Metempsychosis. Both these words because of the common misunderstanding of the ancient literatures, are modernly supposed, or rather mistaken, to mean that the human soul at some time after death migrates into the beast-realm (especially if its karman during physical life be a heavy or evil one), and afterwards is reborn on Earth in a beast-body. The real meaning of this statement in the ancient literatures, refers, however, to the destiny of the life-atoms; but it has absolutely no reference to the destiny of the human soul as an entity. The misunderstanding of this doctrine by Europeans has been partly caused by the fact that it was considered an esoteric teaching by Oriental, Latin, and Greek writers, and therefore never was fully divulged in exoteric literature.
The human soul can no more migrate over and incarnate in a beast-body than can the psychical apparatus of a beast incarnate upwards in human flesh. Why? Because in the former case, the beast-vehicle offers the human soul no opening at all for the expression of the distinctly human powers and faculties and tendencies which in their aggregate, and because of their evolved characteristics, make a man human. Nor, conversely, can the soul of a beast enter into a human body, because the impassable gulf, of a psychical and intellectual nature, which separates the two kingdoms, the Human Kingdom and the Beast Kingdom, prevents any such passage or transmigration from the one up into the other, which is so much its superior in all respects. In the former case, there is no attraction for the normal man beastwards; and, in the latter case, there is the impossibility that the imperfectly developed beast-mind and beast-soul can find a proper lodgment in what to it is truly a godlike sphere which in consequence it cannot enter. It is against natural law, for the same reason that figs do not grow of thistles, nor does one pluck grapes from a cherry-tree. A human soul, or rather the human reimbodying ego, seeks incarnation in a human body, in a human encasement, because there is no attraction for it elsewhere. Human seed produces human bodies; human souls reproduce human soul -- i. e., themselves.
Transmigration, however, has a specific meaning as follows, when the word is applied to the human soul: the living entity migrates or passes over from one condition to another condition or state or plane, as the case may happen to be, whether these latter be in the invisible realms of Nature or in the visible realms, and whether the state or condition be high or low. The specific meaning of this word, therefore, implies nothing more than a change of state or of condition or of plane: a migrating of the living entity from one state or condition or plane to another. It contains in fact the combined meanings of Evolution and Karman: in other words, karmic evolution, as signifying the path followed by the Monad in migrating from sphere to sphere, from spirit to matter and back again to spirit, and in the course of its pilgrimage entering into vehicle or body after vehicle or body.
In the application of this word to the life-atoms, to which particular sense are to be referred the observations of the ancients with regard to the lower realms of Nature, it means, briefly, that the life-atoms which in their aggregate compose man's lower principles, at and following the change that men call death, migrate or transmigrate or pass into other bodies to which these life-atoms are psycho-magnetically attracted, be these attractions high or low -- and they are usually low, because their own evolutionary development is as a rule far from being advanced. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that these life-atoms compose man's inner -- and outer -- vehicles or bodies, and that in consequence there are various grades or classes of these life-atoms, from the physical upwards (or inwards) to the astral, then the purely vital, then the emotional, then the mental and psychical. This is, in general terms, the meaning of Transmigration. The word has no more than the specific meanings just outlined, and stops there.
The fifth word is Transmigration: a word which has been grossly misunderstood in the modern Occident, which has also been the fate, by the way, of the next word, Metempsychosis. Both these words because of the common misunderstanding of the ancient literatures, are modernly supposed, or rather mistaken, to mean that the human soul at some time after death migrates into the beast-realm (especially if its karman during physical life be a heavy or evil one), and afterwards is reborn on Earth in a beast-body. The real meaning of this statement in the ancient literatures, refers, however, to the destiny of the life-atoms; but it has absolutely no reference to the destiny of the human soul as an entity. The misunderstanding of this doctrine by Europeans has been partly caused by the fact that it was considered an esoteric teaching by Oriental, Latin, and Greek writers, and therefore never was fully divulged in exoteric literature.
The human soul can no more migrate over and incarnate in a beast-body than can the psychical apparatus of a beast incarnate upwards in human flesh. Why? Because in the former case, the beast-vehicle offers the human soul no opening at all for the expression of the distinctly human powers and faculties and tendencies which in their aggregate, and because of their evolved characteristics, make a man human. Nor, conversely, can the soul of a beast enter into a human body, because the impassable gulf, of a psychical and intellectual nature, which separates the two kingdoms, the Human Kingdom and the Beast Kingdom, prevents any such passage or transmigration from the one up into the other, which is so much its superior in all respects. In the former case, there is no attraction for the normal man beastwards; and, in the latter case, there is the impossibility that the imperfectly developed beast-mind and beast-soul can find a proper lodgment in what to it is truly a godlike sphere which in consequence it cannot enter. It is against natural law, for the same reason that figs do not grow of thistles, nor does one pluck grapes from a cherry-tree. A human soul, or rather the human reimbodying ego, seeks incarnation in a human body, in a human encasement, because there is no attraction for it elsewhere. Human seed produces human bodies; human souls reproduce human soul -- i. e., themselves.
Transmigration, however, has a specific meaning as follows, when the word is applied to the human soul: the living entity migrates or passes over from one condition to another condition or state or plane, as the case may happen to be, whether these latter be in the invisible realms of Nature or in the visible realms, and whether the state or condition be high or low. The specific meaning of this word, therefore, implies nothing more than a change of state or of condition or of plane: a migrating of the living entity from one state or condition or plane to another. It contains in fact the combined meanings of Evolution and Karman: in other words, karmic evolution, as signifying the path followed by the Monad in migrating from sphere to sphere, from spirit to matter and back again to spirit, and in the course of its pilgrimage entering into vehicle or body after vehicle or body.
In the application of this word to the life-atoms, to which particular sense are to be referred the observations of the ancients with regard to the lower realms of Nature, it means, briefly, that the life-atoms which in their aggregate compose man's lower principles, at and following the change that men call death, migrate or transmigrate or pass into other bodies to which these life-atoms are psycho-magnetically attracted, be these attractions high or low -- and they are usually low, because their own evolutionary development is as a rule far from being advanced. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that these life-atoms compose man's inner -- and outer -- vehicles or bodies, and that in consequence there are various grades or classes of these life-atoms, from the physical upwards (or inwards) to the astral, then the purely vital, then the emotional, then the mental and psychical. This is, in general terms, the meaning of Transmigration. The word has no more than the specific meanings just outlined, and stops there.