Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tt00069)

I was reading the discussion regarding what Theosophy teaches
with interest, and can appreciate the different points of view
expressed.  I'd like to add a few comments of my own.

The doctines are based on truth, on how the world really works,
but their expression by Blavatsky is imperfect.  There is a
degree of restrain as to what was given out.  There were blinds
and veils over certain truths.  The terminology was inaccurate
and being coined on-the-fly as Blavatsky wrote.  And the
materials were written in response to the needs of Western
thinkers of the late 1800's.

One issue on which I've seen different stands taken concerns what
we should teach others, especially the general public.  There is
a basic theosophical model taught by HPB.  She also taught some
additional materials that would alter that model.  (See "The
Inner Group Teachings of HPB".)

Should we consider these additional materials, and doctrines
which logically follow from them, as quasi-esoteric? Should we
teach and talk about the basic theosophical model, including such
ideas as the seven principles being Atman ...  Sthula-Sharira? Or
should we adjust what we teach to account for the later
teachings, and make our presentation more complex?

Our answer may come from what we consider HPB's later teachings
to consist of.  If they are refinements and enhancements, then we
certainly should change the basic model of Theosophy that we
teach.  If they are more advanced materials, not suitable for an
unprepared student, then we should prepare and present them
apart from our general public classes and materials.  They would then
become part of a "Theosophy 201", which would only be taught to
students having completed "Theosophy 101".

Apart from the question of how to treat enhancements to the basic
theosophical model, there's one more idea that I'd like to
comment on.

Our terms are often used in more than one sense.  This may be
partly due to an inadequate, unrefined terminology.  It also may
be due to the multiple use of terms as an esoteric blind,
allowing deeper truths to be hidden behind simpler ones or behind
apparent gibberish.

The term "Monad" is an example of a term with multiple meanings.
Consider three ways in which it could be considered.

First, it is the individual, immortal, pure godspark at the root
of any living thing.  It is someone's supreme self, although it
is beyond the notion of selfhood, is untouched by evolution, and
only sends forth a ray of itself into the evolutionary scheme of
material existence.

In this context, the term can have a dual meaning.  From the
standpoint of the Supreme Self, the absolute Self, there is but
one Monad, and it is the Divine Monad.  From the standpoint of a
particular Self, there is a Self, an Ego, an ray of
consciousness, an relative selfhood at each level.  There's a
spiritual Monad associated with Buddhi, a human Monad associated
with Kama-Manas, etc.

Each of these selves is an "imperishable" selfhood or identity in
the context of its own world, its own domain, its own range of
existence or action.  Each such self is a particular enduring
identity someone would have, in a particular world or plane, and
would be "eternal" or existing for the duration of that world.
Since we exist on multiple planes or worlds, and each has its own
increasing sphere of action, we have Egos or Selves with
corresponding capabilities, even though we're primarily active in
and through our human Ego, through what we know as our
personality or personal self.

(Note that when I say that we exist on multiple planes, I'm not
saying that we are full seven-principled beings, with complete
existence, on other planes.  I'd consider our "existence" on
higher planes to be primarily nascient, latent, quasi-conscious,
in potential.  This is our case, for instance, with regard to our
Manasaputra.  We have a Manasaputra or spiritual being that has
inflamed us, and acts in the role of spiritual parent to us.  But
we also are innately Manasaputras ourselves, albeit undeveloped
and unconscious as such.  We as humans "exist" on the
manasaputric "plane" or field of action in a latent sense.  That
undeveloped manasaputric self within us would be ourselves, as we
"exist" on that plane.)

Second, the term "Monad" can be used with other terms that also
mean indivisible Self, in order to indicate a certain class of
beings.

On a high-reaching scale of being, we'd class them as Gods.  On a
lower scale we'd class them as Monads.  On yet a lower scale we'd
class them as Atoms.  We have three scales of being: the universe
or world creators, the beings, and the life-atoms or elements
that make up the beings.

The three scales might also refer to the three streams of
evolution within a particular scheme, the class of Architects, of
Builders, and of Materials.  These are the game-makers, the
game-players, and the game-piece creators.  A Monad or being when
participating in the highest stream would be called a God, in the
intermediate stream called a Monad, and in the lower stream a
Atom or a Life-Atom.

Thirdly, there is the dual-mode to the experience of life.  From
one standpoint, we are fixed selves, individual beings, eternal,
perfect, unaffected by the turbluent changes of external
life. From this standpoint, our inner nature, as we perceive it, would
be a Monad.

 From the other standpoint, there is no fixed self, nothing
endures from one moment to the next, and the ghostly after-image
of the past only blinds us to the brilliant colors of the living
present.  While functioning in this mode of consciousness, our
inner nature, as we perceive it, would be the Monadic Essence, a
stream of consciousness with its roots deep within us, at our
very heart, touching Divinity, and participating in an eternal
flow, unbroken by the coming and going of men, planets, or even
universes.

Depending upon which standpoint we take, we'd express the human
nature differently.  The seven principles originate in a supreme
self, Atman, from one standpoint.  And they originate in the
fluidic river of life, the Auric Egg, from the other standpoint.

Our terminology has been inprecise, and at times terms have been
used in more than one manner.  This has been due to the lack of
time in refining the terminology.  And due to the use of exoteric
blinds.  But yet another use is as a deliberate teaching
technique.  The intent may well be to keep throwing us off a bit,
to keep us from getting too smug in thinking that we've finally
got "the complete picture", to keep us rethinking our ideas from
scratch and maintaining a healthy fluidity in our thoughts.