Re:Wheat and chaff
Dec 25, 1996 02:44 PM
by Martin Euser
> > ten is the perfect number, something that Pythagoras adhered
> > to).
> I do not know either where HPB speaks about it, but I can supply
> a reference to A. Bailey. In "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" (p.4)
> she explains
> how ten principles can be arrived at (my paraphrase):
> The human being is triple: Spirit, Consciousness, and Form.
> Each of these three aspect is also triple in manifestation which
> makes nine Sephirot. These, with the totality of manifestation
> or the Whole, produce the ten (10) of perfect manifestation, the
> ten Sephirot, or the perfect Man.
> Of course the same principle may be applied to any other
> manifested entity.
Yes. I've seen other divisions of three times a triple too (plus
the synthetic tenth). The point is that one can make many
divisions of the composite human nature, depending on a
particular way of viewing, analysis, emphasis, etc. of the human
being or any other hierarchy in nature.
> According to A.Bailey, ("Cosmic Fire" p.1196-1226) monads (she
> prefers to speak in terms of monads) are found somewhere in the
> middle of the ladder of planetary hierarchies:
> 1st Hierarchy: the Divine Flames, Divine Lives
> 2nd: the Burning Sons of Desire; Divine Builders conferring soul.
> They are the source of monadic life, but they are not the monads;
> they are far higher;
> 3rd: the Triads of Life standing aloof from incarnation;
> 4th: human nonads;
> 5th: the Sons of Men on their own plane (roughly speaking, the
> builders of consciousness);
> 6th: Lunar lords (builders of personality);
> 7th: elemental lives.
It is always time-consuming to analyse and try to understand
systems pertaining to the esoteric. Often, terms and concepts
are defined in a very loose way. Nowadays we should define terms
much better (and the science of general semantics can teach us a
lesson). Remember the mess theosophical societies have got into
because of the use of the terms 'races' and 'rootraces'? This
type of thing can finish off a whole organization because of
severe misunderstandings and malevolent interpretations! I am all
in favor of using more up to date and more understandable terms,
something Vitvan (a former theosophist) has paid a lot of
Regarding the monad: G de P talks about Gods, monads, (life)atoms
where he places monads 'lower' down the scale than the Gods. I
guess that these terms are all relative to the hierarchies one is
talking about. A monad may look indivisible *to us*, but it may
appear composite to beings from another hierarchy. Anyway,
complex stuff to talk about and one wonders how much blinds there
are in HPB's theosophy.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application