Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00259)

[Dallas:]
>HPB lists 3 lines of Monadic evolution that conjoin in Man.
>
>1. Monadic (spiritual)
>2. Intellectual (Manasic)
>3. Physical    (Physical and Astral forms)
>
>As I understand it from what is said in the footnote at the
>bottom of p. 174-5 SD I, the MONAD is a spiritual duad (in
>manifestation), a center of energy if you please defined as
>Atma-Buddhi by HPB, since Buddhi is needed so as to afford Spirit
>(Atma) any contact with lower planes.  To this is added Manas
>(the reasons being given in SD I 243-245 ).  Is this fair so far
>?
>

Agreed. When the divine Monad is "in manifestation" it becomes
the spiritual Monad, a ray of the divine Monad, and it is this spiritual
Monad, or ray, that is dualistic (Motion and Space). You can think
of it as a center of energy if you want to. I rather prefer a center
of consciousness, as Purucker calls it. The divine Monad itself
is nondualistic and is a true monad in the sense of an indivisible
unit (i.e., it is not an "aggragate" in the Buddhist sense).



>On SD I 245fn, HPB says that the "personality" has to cling to
>the Monad, and to partake of its divine nature to obtain
>"immortality."
>

Yes, but she also says that this "immortality" is only until the
end of this manvantara--which is, lets face it, a very long time
but finite nonetheless.


>But, by definition the personality consisting of several
>planes/states of conscious experience is itself an aggregation of
>non-self-conscious Monads.  An intelligence has caused them to
>come to a center and to aggregate and acquire a limited type of
>consciousness (a stone becomes a plant, an animal, a man ....)
> 3rd division ]
>

Be careful with the term "non-self-conscious Monads" because
these are not really monads at all. The problem is that there was
simply no other word that came close, and so "monad" was used
for divisible units (dualistic) that are not really monadic (nondualisitc).
As a good rule of thumb, if its in manifestation its not monadic
even though the early Theosophists called it such.

Also be careful of your use of "an intelligence" because this suggests
a God or something. Actually, it all comes about through karma.


>Seems to me that consciousness and awareness, attentiveness,
>concentration, will, determination, meditation - under whatever
>names - are the forces that we (the REAL MAN, or
>Atma-Buddhi-(Higher-Manas) in this, its probationary stage of
>evolution can use to make conscious contact from this plane to
>the Spiritual base of its primary REALITY.  ( I find I am
>scrambling for the right words to express myself in. )  [ This is
>the 2nd division ]
>

In a sense I agree with you here. In another sense I don't. Consciousness
is not really a force as such, but Reality itself. When a Buddhist says
that your own everyday mind is Buddha, she means that consciousness
itself is Reality. Our thoughts cover this up much like dust covering the
surface of a mirror. Remove thoughts and instead of annihilation we
directly perceive Reality.


>Here I am awake, reading your comments, reading mine, seeking for
>the bridge of clarity that will illuminate them both and
>reconcile what I sense is only a difference in terms, -- why do I
>go to the SD ?  To seek for the expressions that HPB has drawn
>from the ancient research that helps to disentangle these mixed
>threads of consciousness and experience.

I have nothing against using Blavatsky as a guide here. I love her.
The problem that we keep having is that we tend to interpret her
words differently.


> I go to TRANSACTIONS of
>the BLAVATSKY LODGE ( ULT Edn., pp. 66 to 76) as I find there,
>that in discussing dreams, HPB has shown how the waking
>consciousness (you and I here and now, enveloped in Kama-desire
>and passions) finds it difficult to rise to understand its own
>"Father" the Higher Manas (as it (Lower Manas) is a "ray" from
>this thrown onto the sensitive surface of our brain matter) and
>with still greater difficulty the spiritual qualities that are of
>the nature of Atma-Buddhi.
>
I absolutely agree with Blavatsky. It is very difficult. As Tibetan
Buddhists
like to say, we all experience the Clear Light but only an Adept can
recognize the experience and recall it later. To the average human
mind, a spiritual experience is just a blank or coma.


>HPB says that
>1. It is difficult to still the appeal of our desires and
>passions (Kama) which are by definition selfish and
>short-sighted.  I say short-sighted, because they do not envisage
>goals that pass beyond our physical death in this life.  This
>gives us our impatience, pride, and ambition.
>

I personally suspect that it is impossible to still such petty desires
completely. This is exactly why it is said in the MLs that an Adept
is such only when consciousness is raised to higher planes.

>2. This process of bringing the Kamic nature to a standstill. Is
>said to be achieved by meditation.
>

Yes, but it can only be achieved temporarily just like thoughts
can be stopped temporarily (e.g., in samadhi).


>3. But, meditation on what ?  The selection of a subject for deep
>thought -- this is apparently vital.  Here is where the old books
>suggest the ideas of universality, impersonality and generosity
>(all comprehended in the idea of Brotherhood as an active way of
>life, and based on a grasp of one's essential immortality as the
>Atma-Buddhi-Manasic SELF (The REAL MAN).

Actually you can meditation one-pointedly on just about anything
at all. I like to pretend I am an outside observer looking at the thoughts
running through my mind, and try to observe very carefully what is
going on just as one ends and before the next thought begins. In
that in-between period is spirituality.


>So the first injunction
>is the old:  "Man, know thyself."  And this seems to be a very
>slow process, and most of us are very impatient.  We try to by
>pass this.  But according to esotericism as explained in HPB's
>articles relative to chelaship and the difference between the
>Psychic and the Noetic ( see HPB PSYCHIC AND NOETIC ACTION ) such
>a knowledge alone enables us, from this waking plane of
>consciousness, to purify and refine our inner "tools" in the
>physical, psychic, and mental planes/states.

Agreed.

>I would say that it
>is spiritual aspiration towards the embodiment of the "virtues"
>(or Parmitas of the VOICE) that does it, and this is recommended
>by all "spiritual" Schools of self-progression and
>self-refinement - if one desires to make the inner Spiritual Self
>( the MONAD - HIGHER SELF ) active in our lives.
>

Such purification is one way, and a very good one. But it is
not the only way. This is the way Blavatsky's school goes
but there are others that get results as well.


>4. If one speaks of forms, colors and other sensations, which we
>perceive in retrospect out of our memories (usually incomplete,
>as we apparently are rarely able to participate in such "dreams"
>or "visions," we may be seeing those forms and ideas which the
>WAKING CONSCIOUSNESS, here and now, is able to comprehend.  In
>other words, the actual experience may be in quite a different
>context or form and we do not know it, because the chain of
>consciousness is broken. The surviving impression, perhaps
>focused by the HIGHER SELF, is then expressed in terms that we
>understand here and now with our waking, physically embodied
>minds.
>

Agreed.

>5. If this is true then our real effort is to forge and
>eventually use such a "chain of consciousness" which bridges the
>gap between those states, whether psychic or spiritual.  It is
>the  "Lower-Mind" consciousness, that, realizing the supernal
>nature of the interior HIGHER SELF, its "Real" and "True," tries
>to reach up to it, and become one with it, so as to employ its
>ideals in daily life and work.
>

Agreed. Doing exactly this is called the Great Work or simply Treading
the Path.

>6. I tend to agree with your definitions as to the difference
>between those sensations and ideas that flow to our waking
>brain-consciousness after such an event.  But what troubles me is
>that we are passive while those events occur, and what we now see
>is only the memory, not the event itself.  How do we learn to
>make our waking consciousness awake and active in either the
>psychic or the spiritual state, so that we know we are in control
>?
>
Practice. There is also Kundalini Yoga in which spiritual forces
are brought down into the body to slowly spiritualize the body
(especially the brain) in order to allow the lower self to tolerate
the higher spiritual forces and energies. But this has its
dangers and needs to be done very slowly.


>And there is where I am, finally, in all this reply.
>
>We have apparently three levels of experience for the eternal
>immortal Monads:
>
>1. unconsciousness and inexperience, (Monadic essence, chaotic,
>cosmic, cometary, mundial, or "root" matter in general -
>mulaprakriti ?)
>
>2. Self-consciousness, (Mankind - embodied mind at various levels
>of 'awakening' ?), and
>
>3. Universal Spiritual, Noetic, Psychic, physical consciousness
>which being individualized and fully spiritualized is able to
>pass through every plane and see all experiences.  (The condition
>and work of the Adepts, Mahatmas, Bodhisattvas, Buddhas, etc...
>all participating voluntarily in the vast evolutionary processes
>of Nature)
>
>Does it make any sense to you ? Dal.
>


Yes. But there are, I think, a lot more than three levels. Every monadic
unit in manifestation is self-conscious to a degree but in general this
is limited to their own "system" of worlds. Thus trees have a tree-
consciousness, rocks have a rock-consciousness, and so on.

Jerry S.