HPB describes sevenfold consciousness/intelligence/spirit ('7 spirits before the throne' :)

high-/deity-spirit; Word
middle-/holy-spirit; oversoul: paramatma/jive
low-/plain-spirit: atma; deo (a more monosyllabic British--Scottish--word)
soul
mind (incl. high/abstract/arupa, middle/egoic/rupa, low/concrete/kama-manas :) spatial--astral (space is 5th dimension)
ghost: temporal (time is 4th dimension)
life (3 dimensions.)

I call the latter 'consciousness,' but there is a consciousness heptad (non-transpersonal psychologists have only a triad, or tetrad if they have any intellectual clarity: )

Deity-conscious (transpersonal psychology term)
Mukti-/Buddha-/Christ-conscious (transpersonal psychology term)
superconscious (transpersonal psychology term)
consciousness (controls/watches mind)
pre-conscious (mind is mainly this, in psychology)
subconscious
unconscious (in psychology typically a synonym for the previous one, except this is the vital/ethereal id--former is emotional.)

Also, consciousness is described by words with the prefix 'in:'

induction (not necessarily as complete/high a form of reason as some of the following, but the cause of the next one in physics)
incandescence (enlightenment; highly spiritual reasoning--noesis)
inspiration (spiritual, by etymology)
intuition (higher reason, philosophically; particularly 'soulful' in esoteric philosophy)
intellect (mental)
instinct (ghostly/emotional)
incarnation (vital/ethereal.)

The reason I started without 'infinity' or 'intelligence' is I reserve those (and others) for kosmik worlds ('planes,' but I am a mathematician) higher than kosmik material-ethereal ('physical,' but that would exclude energy from higher ones ;) the latter defined in the latter heptad. If you do not want to do that, use 'infinity' or 'intelligence' not 'induction,' since it is only part of abductive reasoning. IIRC HPB implied regular-level and kosmik worlds.

What do you think are the differences between these heptads, or spirit, consciousness, intelligence? I am not sure, but I made a list of ideas & things from 1 - 52 (50 being least number of Devanagari--written Sanskrit, 52 being number of Varmala--spoken Sanskrit,) including squares for 1 - 10 (i.e. 2x2, 3x3 ideas to 10x10,) including spirit & intelligence heptads with correspondences to worlds ('planes,') elements (classical, energetic, force,) states of matter using etheric theory, and categories of gnosis & forms (subjects & objects,) or Shakti forces. Does anyone know a neo-Platonic heptad of objects (not just ideal forms?) Plato had 2 subjects-objects pairs, which could be 6 (each pair element individually or together) and named, 7. The lowest objects are elements/images, emotions/images/things, and thoughts/things (maybe also [systems of] forms in mental triad,) but how do you categorize/order ones at soul and above: forms, systems of forms, ideals, ideas? Are each separate or are there 4 combinations of both pairs? Perhaps one says not 'idea forms' but only 'ideal forms,' and on the other hand there may be [un]knowable transcendent ideas closer to monad Agathon, but it is confusing if they are not [ideal] systems of forms. Maybe I should give up objects and list the Shakti forces or consciousness heptad.

David,

The first thing that comes to mind are the seven principles within each human.



For your other questions, you might want to google "Blavatsky" plus the words you are looking for.

HPB describes 7 principles both 'in a human' and 'of the 7 planes'.... What I listed is 3 synonym name lists of consciousness principles in the 7 planes. My question about that was as rhetorical as it was dialectical (they are synonyms is all I know,) but my questions were not so much about that, so I will clarify.

In each world ('plane') we know each principle (subject) involves certain forms, things, or images (objects; forms being only higher in Platonic terminology; lower 'forms' being termed other than 'forms.') Some Sanatana Dharma philosophy has the idea of 'I-that' (subject-object) and states 'Thou art that' (on the level of Platonic forms, and the substance of each consciousness principle.) These are subject-object or whole-parts correspondences for the 3 lower worlds; for higher they are debateable/unknown:

mind - thought[form] (note 'mentation' vs. thinking)
ghost - emotion
life - element

So, what are they on the 4 higher planes of deity-/high-spirit/Word, holy-/middle-spirit/oversoul, spirit, soul? (I took out the section on what I thought they could be because it was quite problematic.)

I guess just as emotional world/'plane' ones are called emotions, soulful & spiritual worlds ones could just use those names, though 'emotional' does not refer to the actual body there (such as the parapsychology term 'ghost') while soulful & spiritual do. Maybe at that level, closer to subject-object unity, it is okay, but that unity might only be at the level of purusha/paramatma (I think so, but am not sure.)

Nick,

On another topic, of Deity-consciousness... I noticed in 'Religions, Philosophies, etc.: What Religion Am I Quiz' you said Theosophy is pantheist. I think Theosophy is compatible with about any form of theism and perhaps weak atheism (I am more theist than atheist.) IIRC, HPB wrote about pantheism, but would it not be more accurate to say Theosophy is panentheist? Without extra philosophical definition, pantheism is similar to animism, but panentheism means nature is within Deity--a clearer way of saying 'Deity is within nature' (pantheism) but that Deity is [still, definitely] greater than the universe. Panentheism allows for other universes.

--Bro David.

David,

I use the word pantheistic to describe the groups of "gods" that created humanity. Christianity also teaches that humanity was created by a group of "gods." Therefore, Christianity is also pantheistic, although most Christians would vehemently deny it.

Let's consider the idea that the word “God” in the Bible was originally “Gods” (plural) and was mis-translated into English. The Book of Genesis says:

“Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” (Genesis 1.26)

When the Bible was translated into English, the word “God” was translated from the word “Elohim”. The word Elohim is plural, not singular:

“The form of the word Elohim, with the ending -im, is plural and masculine....” (www.answers.com/topic/elohim, in the Section titled, “Entymology”.)

Therefore, the sentence from Genesis should read:

“Then the Gods said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” (Genesis 1.26)

... which is what Theosophy teaches. Let’s take another look at the original line from Genesis:

“Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” (underlines added.)

Here, the Bible clearly categorizes the speaker(s) as plural, which again agrees with Theosophical teachings.

The OED definitions are 'pantheism
1. a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2. the worship or tolerance of many gods.
panentheism
the belief or doctrine that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it.'

So, I see how you could describe the Elohim (which I am suprised to hear is masculine, since 'Eloh' is feminine) pantheon pantheist in the sense of polytheism or [kat]henotheism. I think Theosophy also makes statements about the other definition of pan[en]theism.

"the worship or tolerance of many gods"

--> Then Christianity is a pantheistic religion. Even the Bible confirms it.

Yes, of course Judaism and Christianity are pantheistic, however certain 'Christians' reject the old testament, and the new one is not so pantheist. I was aware of the description of Elohim in [I]The Secret Doctrine[/].

Do you think 'consciousness' is a sufficient synonym for 'principles in man?' Maybe some Theosophists, or at least some Dharma philosophers define consciousness part of the spiritual triad, but what are the other denotations? There are too many, but few other (than perhaps the others in the topic name) describe well enough to perhaps be better terms. I referred to '7 spirits.' As for consciousness, it may include action and senses, arguably in all principles, but most other denotations do not include both action or particularly senses. As for intelligence, even what is incarnate has certain order so could be called reasonable. I am not sure Plato would say so... maybe just pan[en]theistically/hylozoistically intelligent.

Also, if the human principles heptad is mainly planes 3 - 5, is there a better way to define mental consciousness than just intellect? I am inclined to say mahat->induction->soul, ->incandescence->highest mind, ->intuition->causal mind. AAB & DK books say intuition is souful (but misuse the word 'inspiration;') Platonic mathematicians might agree if they think it is noesis (archaically maybe psychosis, in the definition of normal psyche processes, than mentation referring to mind/nous.) That would result in these correspondences:

element 1 (if corresponding to plane 1:) inspiration
element 2: inspiration
ether: inspiration
fire: induction
air: incandescence->intuition->intellect
water: instinct
earth: incarnation

My earlier one had 'force' (beyond material elements,) such as electroweak, etc. corresponding to induction, and fire corresponding to inspiration (implying 'fire of spirit,')
but the above table makes different microcosmic sense, though the disadvantage is the so-called mental triad (not necessarily holistic.) I like Adyar's planes chart with triple manifestation, and I think mahat may be induction or inspiration that does involution of itself from inspiration into spirit to incarnation into life. The above table still says it is inspiration, which is maybe all we can say about it, but maybe the other table is better if intelligence processes are not restricted to principles in man. Maybe it depends whether it is divine or personal intelligence. There could be a function from one to the other but it might need list 1 moved exactly into the 2nd's places.

I see Plotinus mentioned more and more as I get deeper into the two volumes of the Esoteric Tradition. It seems that Neo-Platonism is described as the best of the concepts of Plato. So I get the impression that it is higher learning, or, perhaps they are saying refinements made toward accuracy and comprehensiveness. Although Plotinus gets the very highest praise, they make reference to some small corrections to his words being necessary as he wrote in order to be understood by the minds of the Greek philosophers of his day.

When one reaches Nirvana he doesn't seperate himself so much as he is reaching that part of himself that is already there. My first impression of this venue is that the person has identity with a vast scope of experience, with no want for any knowledge, and so it be must a state of awareness, and intellect in a state of bliss. Eventually, the draw back to matter must happen for reasons I am too tired at the moment to contemplate on.

I was looking at the seven tattwas which precede the seven lokas beginning from Nirvana in descending order. It was pretty interesting.

I'll paste paste part of what DaveC wrote on another thread. I've been going over it in order to make it stick. It is pretty involved.

Almost any mathematician, or other not completely empirical scientist who is a good mathematician,

would say intuition is definitely beyond feelings, i.e. instinct (emotional feelings) or incarnation (physical

feelings.) Many such scientists came up with ideas without knowing how (or in the case of Einstein he

just took a nap, though he was not a great mathematician--he had to hire one.) Mathematicians

traditionally, [neo-]Platonically, thought intuition is how ideas come to mind from noeta/intelligibles...

fewer mathematicians are [neo-]Platonic now, though I think it is still the major viewpoint. Empiricism

(higher doxa/a-posteriori--belief) may be used, but noeta/a-priori is also important: synthesis (noesis)

and analysis (dianoia.) The role of Theosophy is also to use noeta/esoterism and show how many

scientists are wrong to limit themselves to doxa/exoterism.

I have read neo-Platonism definitely has refinements towards accuracy and comprehensiveness, but I have not read much neo-Platonism yet. Thomas Taylor translated most Greek Philosophers Theosophists would be interested in; HPB and others read his works. They are public domain, but unfortunately I have not found them on the 'net and the [many] books are very expensive.

...perhaps unless Paranirvana and Mahaparanirvana exist, in which case one may be beyond intellect. Is Devachan beyond intellect and is Devachan Nirvana?

(That sounds Platonic.) I have been writing about this and will continue here. Neo-Theosophy probably has problems with extra principles. Mary Scott wrote it is reasonable and tantric, which could be more esoteric, but who knows? It does not sound like anything I have read so far; HPB's classification makes more sense to me now. I re-read about 'planes' and 'principles' in SD. One diagram I like shows 2 principles/plane, and the lower is the internal vehicle for the main one, except the body is the only lowest material plane one and vehicle for all.




I should have said this rather than the previous post part about spirit:

(I will use Platonic definitions relating consciousness principles to kingdoms of nature. Do you think divine is also in astral and ethereal because of the lower bodies of Buddhas and since those planes have humans and 'ye are gods,' and maybe even plane 7 is divine because of avatars, mulaprakriti, panentheism?)

(I will put macrocosmic names for planes 1st (after kingdoms) but do not recall if there are better ones for 'spiritual.' Since planes 5 - 7 are matter, 1 or 2 of them have force and 1 or 2 [higher] of them [of which 1 may be the same] have energy. Therefore arguably at least planes 3 & 4 are elemental/physical--akasha and fire (whichever,) and according to HPB all are elemental.... That is why plane 7 can be 'geological;' maybe that is too philosophical, and I do not know how to describe it with a 'principle in man.' Also I should have said 2 higher planes may involve induction->incandescence->incineration.)

planes: '7 spirits of god' ('principles in humanity') described
1. spiritual 1: (divine)
2. spiritual 2: (divine)
3. spiritual 3: (divine)
4. spiritual 4: (human-divine) spiritual-soulful
5. material 1: (animal-human) [aerological?] [astral-]mental-emotional
6. material 2: (vegetable-animal-human) [hydrological?] ethereal-vital
7. material 3: (mineral-vegetable-animal-human) [geological?]




This is what I should have said about consciousness:

*like esoteric Buddhism:
God-consciousness: spirit
Mukti-/Buddha-/Christ-consciousness: soul
superconsciousness: mind
consciousness: astral body
subconsciousness: life
pre-consciousness: vital body
unconsciousness: body

*like Vedanta:
God-consciousness: spirit
Mukti-/Buddha-/Christ-consciousness: soul
superconsciousness: "higher mind"
pre-consciousness: "mind" & astral body
subconsciousness: life & vital body
unconsciousness: body

*like Taraka Raja Yoga:
God-consciousness: spirit
Mukti-/Buddha-/Christ-consciousness: soul
pre-consciousness: mind
unconsciousness: life & [vital] body & body

I may still see reasons neo-Theosophists came up with their different classification which may in a way more clearly use the variations above that HPB also used (such as higher manas, lower manas, kama manas, kama rupa as 3 principles, the latter 2 usually synonymous, being on a plane where there should be 2) but if it is not tantric it is probably very speculative.




I should have said something better about intelligences, but I think what I had said in this post was illogical so I took it out... I will think about it and try to write more, or feel free to beat me to it.

Book notes for David C, or anyone else. This site sells all the Taylor translations and yes, they are expensive. But these paperbacks are a great introduction to Platonic thought:

http://openingmind.net/cart/index.php?main...e2fe392d9fbe507

For those with even more moola, The Prometheus Trust has all the Taylor translations and commentaries (33 volumes) in beautiful clothbound.

Interestingly, he neve translated the whole of the Enneads. I think I read he did not feel able to get it right.

Repeating - This site sells all the Taylor translations

http://openingmind.net/cart/index.php?main...e2fe392d9fbe507

I think the Prometheus Trust editions are the ones sold by Opening Mind; I do not think they have paperbacks. It is unfortunate Taylor did not complete Enneads, but nice I can look for a cheaper complete version.

Jeez - does anybody ever click on the links and actually read what is there?

Prometheus Trust does produce paperbacks. Opening Mind sells everything that Prometheus produces, plus stuff by Grimes.

QUOTE
When one reaches Nirvana he doesn't seperate himself so much as he is reaching that part of himself that is already there. My first impression of this venue is that the person has identity with a vast scope of experience, with no want for any knowledge, and so it be must a state of awareness, and intellect in a state of bliss. Eventually, the draw back to matter must happen for reasons I am too tired at the moment to contemplate on.[--mensagitat]


DaveC;
...perhaps unless Paranirvana and Mahaparanirvana exist, in which case one may be beyond intellect. Is Devachan beyond intellect and is Devachan Nirvana?
~~~

I think from what I've read that Devachan has more gradients, variations. Avichi, kama loka and Devachan blend one into the next. Since I keep being reminded of states or conditions rather than actual places, and, we do not necessarily have to be dead to be in these states, it might be sort of an indicator of where one might have his/her start after death. I think we - the intermediate, manas - has to go through these states before the divine soul is finally reached. The sephira can sort of describe what we travel through. I think what we are magnetically drawn to, in the very seemingly endless grades of avichi, kama loka, devachan, are where we maybe go, to slough off certain things before joining our Spiritual Soul to be in Devachanic bliss until the next incarnation.

Maybe the description Devachanic Nirvana is not such a bad phrase. As far as what we go to at the end of a manvantara, I'd say every single monad goes to it. Even the monad of a single atom. Substance is then inert. I would simply wonder how the monad of a single atom would experience Nirvana. Perhaps only to the extent to which it is able.

Describing the consciouness of a Monad which has long ago completed the evolution within humanity, or its lowest manifestation, such as the human body is to our Monads lowest manifestation, seems too difficult because we don't have any clue as to what it is able to perceive. Making the effort to do just that is still a worthwhile endeavor, and there have been Great Masters and Seers which have aided in this effort.

What we put our attention to and the mental/emotional states we tend to be in, are probably the very important things in life. These are just thoughts I express to bounce them around in my own head. I don't expect people who have busy lives to lead, to be reading my long winded barely senseable ramblings. .

As a computer scientist, I do not click (which is not a verb or instruction) links. I do not recall seeing paperbacks of translated Greek Philosopher works the last time I read their site, but this time I see a couple and it says they plan to do the rest in the next 5 years... I hope their US distributor will sell them.

The word 'click' would be defined as a sound. Therefore DaveC, you were instructed to sound on the link. :lol: Only kidding around.

"Another point of importance: the difference between the bliss and wisdom and peace which the nirvani has, and the bliss and peace and comparative rest which the devachani has, is this: the nirvani is completely and wholly Self-conscious, while the devachani is in a state which it is difficult to describe in ordinary words, but which actually is by comparison with the spiritual reality of the Nirvana, a condition of highly felicitous dreaming. The term 'dreaming' is somewhat inaccurate, nor does it convey actually the idea that the devachani's condition is more or less lacking in self-conscious realization of its own felicity, but merely that, however 'spiritual' the devachanic condition is, by comparison with the nirvanic, it is illusory enough." ET vol I ch 18 pg. 585.

David,

You asked,

"Is Devachan beyond intellect and is Devachan Nirvana?"

--> I do not know why, but a lot of people have trouble distinguishing between Devachan and Nirvana. Let me give my interpretation. Devachan (Heaven) is the blissful world we spend time in between incarnations. It is where we rest between the struggles of being in a physical body. Nirvana, on the other hand, is where we 'go' after we have finished our last incarnation, and leave the physical world behind forever.

Nirvana has been described as one of the seven planes of existence, and is at a higher level than the mental plane of existence. I think there are 'people' who are conscious at the mental (Devachanic) plane, and 'people' who are conscious at the nirvanic plane. Since the nirvanic plane is at a higher level than the mental plane, I would say Devachan is 'beyond' intellect.'

So was I. Of course the link may have been making click sounds in memory. Many people might say the geometric relationship between the mouse and coordinates allows clicking over one of those, but I have never completely liked mice/whatever or graphical user interfaces... 'press' sounds better.

Apparently I know not enough about Dharma. I thought nirvana was devachan if it is buddhic and if devas are the highest beings besides Logoi. I wonder what is beyond devachan in Sanatana Dharma.

Did you mean Nirvana is? (though I asked about devachan which I have read described as buddhic.)

The fact that I am engaged in the study of Theosophy immediately informs that I'm lacking in a comprehensive understanding of Theosophy. In studying the two volumes, The Esoteric Tradition with the aid and guidance of a Teacher, I am certainly learning the words of H.P. Blavatsky through the understanding of Purucker. I'm not certain of who it may be, that I might have a conflict with.

This might indicate that I want to learn their thought as well, and from this whole, simply work it all out within my own being. Ultimately, it will be through my own travellings in all the various forms and forces that will direct me to the penultimate.

I'm not certain why I chose that last word. The belief that there is no ending, maybe.

I think that whatever magnetic attractions picked up during life, are not all appropriate for Devichanic condition, and we possibly work our way through the spectrum of avichi, kama loka, to get to Devachan. I think this is applicable thought to what we also engage while still alive.

A part of us is already in the Nirvana. If that is reached while alive, then this is a perfected living human being. Devachan is for the reincarnating Ego before he reincarnates. But I think this Ego doesn't necessarily go directly to this state until certain states or conditions are sloughed off. It explains to me why I don't let certain states linger within me so much anymore, such as perceptions of another person 'doing' something to me. Why do I want to be in such a state? They too often go way beyond any constructive force or form.

Don't mind me, I simply felt like going on like that battery bunny. I can't think of the name, ever-ready? I'm not sure, I like Duracell myself. :huh:

David,

You are correct. I meant to say Nirvana. I would say Nirvana is 'beyond' intellect.

You said,

"I thought nirvana was devachan if it is buddhic...."

--> Here are the seven planes of existence:

Adi
Anupapaduka
Atman
Buddhi
Manas (Intelligence, Mental) (Devachan)
Astral
Physical
(Geoffrey Barborka, Secret Doctrine, Questions and Answers, pp 12-13)
http://www.theos-talk.com/archives/200309/tt00228.html

Nirvana is the plane of existence above Buddhi. Buddhi is the plane of existence above Manas (Devachan, intelligence). Therefore, when a person achieves consciousness on the Nirvanic plane, they are 'beyond thinking in an intellectual way.'

mensagitat,

You said,

"A part of us is already in the Nirvana...."

--> Correct. It is not like Nirvana is over there, and the Physical Plane is over here. The Nirvanic Plane interpenetrates the Physical Plane. The main thing is that we are not yet conscious on the Nirvanic Plane of Existence.

Here is a useful analogy. Take a large jar and fill it with rocks. The large jar is now full, right? No, pour pebbles in between the rocks. The large jar is now full, right? No, pour tiny ball-bearings between the pebbles. The large jar is now full, right? No, pour powdered flour between the ball-bearings. The large jar is now full, right? No, pour water 'between' the powdered flour particles. The large jar is now full, right? No....

We can only perceive objects on the physical plane. Let's compare this to the large jar. Let's say that our eyesight is so bad that, when we look inside the large jar, all we see are the fuzzy outlines of the rocks. (This is an inadequate analogy, but I think you can get the idea.) Today, we can only see the rocks. However, someday, we will sequentially become able to see the pebbles, ball-bearings, powdered flour, and water — someday, we will raise our levels of consciousness to be conscious on the Devachanic, Buddhic, and Nirvanic Planes of Existence. Nirvana is here, but we are unable to perceive it.

I pasted the diagram below to see how close it is to what you presented. I remember that a few of you mention unfamiliarity with talas. Apparently there is the conception that we have substance affiliated with force, even when we are contemplating higher planes. Perhaps it can be illustrated as the current that flows between the anode and cathode. The higher the potential (matter), the more current (fohat) from force (spirit). This is actually a Globe where matter has been perfected. It is also existence within temptation. Strong temptation.

I kind of view the seven Root-Races evolving on seven worlds among the four heavens, seven times Round in the following manner; Talatala, Mahatala, Rasatala, to our current Patala. Patala, Bhur-Loka is this Earth. Bhuvar-Loka, Svar-Loka, Mahar-Loka is among the ascending Arc. The talas are the descending arc toward perfecting matter. Among each Loka, there is its corresponding tala, even if you are looking at a chart that is showing them as being seperate.

One theory I think upon is that of a being on this Bhur-Loka Patala (Earth), Having much more of the Principle (Loka) than the Element (tala). We would not be able to see this person. Or perhaps that is an allegory for our not being able to comprehend this being. If this is an actuality, then only an individual who approaches a relative proximity to this exalted being, would be able to pass on knowlege from this being to others.


1. Adi-tattwa -- proceeding from First Logos

2. Anupapadaka-tattwa " " Second Logos

3. Akasa-tattwa " " Third Logos

4. Vayu-tattwa

5. Taijasa-tattwa

6. Apas-tattwa

7. Prithivi-tattwa

1. Satya-loka --- 1. Atala
2. Tapar-loka -- 2. Vitala
3. Janar-loka --- 3. Sutala
4. Mahar-loka -- 4. Talatala
5. Swar-loka ---- 5. Mahatala
6. Bhuvar-loka -- 6. Rasatala
7. Bhur-loka ----- 7. Patala