Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00302)

Dear Jerry:

I don't think I have an "horror" at discussing any Theosophical issue.

However I am truly interested in making sure that the teachings we have on
the 7 Principles of man, and their usage as information in trying to
understand the impact of the evolutionary scheme presented in Theosophy are
correct.  I mean that there is a 3-fold evolution:  body, mind and "spirit.
(or consciousness)"

Both Kama-loca and Devachan are "after death states" from that point of
view.  Let me state in brief what I have gathered from Theosophical
teachings.

"Kama-loca" arises from all our personal and selfish traits, attached to the
"astral body."  The "Kama-rupa" is said to dissipate fairly quickly as it is
also abandoned by the animating "spirit."   This spirit (Atma-Buddhi-Higher
Manas) takes with it into the Devachanic introspective, subjective state the
unselfish memories of the life last lived.

"Jiva" is usually translated "life" but also means the "animating soul."  It
is usually applied to the Cosmic Principle of LIFE in general.

"Prana" (or "breath") is that aspect of Jiva which is specially used by the
Personality under the impulse of its past Karma to live an embodied
existence in a "personality."

"Devachan" arises from the necessary time needed for the Spirit in Man to
review and consider all the unselfish and noble aspects of thought, feeling
and action that were done by the last personality in wending its way through
the life just ended.

I do not think that modern psychology considers the immortality of the
Spirit/Soul, and therefore the states that Theosophy describes are unknown,
though possibly suspected by some psychologists.

In our earth life we live in a "personality" which is compounded of Kama and
Manas, and with a potential of being Buddhic when we permit generosity,
universality, humanism, unselfishness, etc. occur (these seem to be its
characteristics).

Kama and Buddhi seem to be opposites in terms of attitude.  The first being
intensely selfish and interested in the well being and pleasure of the
mortal personality, and is usually callous to the needs and well-being of
others.  The second, Buddhi, being essentially universal and unselfish,
coincides in attitude with the more general sympathetic and empathetic
nature of Cosmos, because it has an awareness of immortality and of
universality.

As I understand it, modern psychology does not deal with these feelings,
emotions or thoughts in the same way as Theosophy does, and therefore it has
a rather non-moralistic approach.

I use the word "non-moralistic," since I believe a true theosophical
definition would be to say that :  "being convinced of universal law and of
one's own immortality in SPIRIT, the living personality acting as the mental
controller of the direction of its life and acts, proceeds to control its
living so as to conform to the general Laws of Nature."

In other words, if we can foresee harm, and future pain coming to us under
Law, because we voluntarily break that Law, why do today, something we deem
to be either pleasant or amusing, since we will have to "pay" for exercising
an undue freedom, at some other's expense,  later on ?

I realize this sounds like fate, and an abridgment of "free-will."  But if
there are in fact universal ethical and moral Laws (such as brotherhood,
fairness, justice, sympathy, altruism, nobility, etc...) why flout them ?

We do live in a vast interactive and cooperative community which involves
not only humans but all aspects of Nature around us: air, water, food,
shelter, communication, information, political freedom and educational
opportunities, [ at least, in more recent years ] etc...  Our bodies run
themselves pretty well uncared for most of the time, and we tenant them
almost without any responsibility for them, other than cleanliness, feeding
and orderliness.   We usually pay attention to them when something goes
wrong health-wise, and then we learn that we may have abused them. [ I am
not taking into account congenital, accidental, or extraordinary
circumstances.]

Long-winded, but I try to express it briefly.

Any help?

Dal