Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tt00067)

Maxim:

> > 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
attention to.

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.

Regards,