Theos-Talk Archives (April 1999 Message tt00081)

> <<> How does one acquire "individual Consciousness" when
> > HPB clearly stated that spirit or atma is NOT individualistic?
> Such 'individual consciousness' is mentioned over and over again in the
> Key to Theosophy and its  acquirement is gone into in great depth in the
> Secret Doctrine.>>
>
> Peter, you seem to have missed the fact that such an
> individualistic consciousness is pure maya, the Heresy of
> Separateness. Individuality exists only within our 7-plane
> solar system, and mostly only on the lower four planes.
>
>
> >>I don't think Theosophy does state it is THE goal of evolution".  >>
>
> Yes, it does. The Theosophical goal of evolution is the
> development of self-consciousness according to most of
> the early Theosophical pioneers including G de P whom
> I hope deep within himself knew better.


Jerry,

You are trying to have both sides of the argument here.  On the one hand, by
using what HPB said about Atma, you question my view that 'Individual
Consciousness' is something that can be 'acquired'.    On the other hand you
are seeking to show me wrong about the 'evolution' by claiming Theosophy
*does* state that Individual Consciousness is THE goal of evolution in
Theosophy.

I am not so sure it is THE goal for reasons I will look at another time.
But are you saying that HPB and the Masters taught this and should have
known better or is it 'Theosophy a la Ge de P' you are taking about?

> Self-consciousness inherently implies individualism
> or a personal individual self. This is, indeed, the
> goal of evolution, but all evolution is really maya,
> an illusion. Why? Because there there is no such a self.


I think these references to Maya just 'fog' the issues.  Of course
everything in the manifested Kosmos is only 'relatively real'.    But then
what?  If everything is maya, why argue so fiercely about dissolving
personal Karma, or for 'liberation in a single lifetime', or for
'imagination' as the only way to the spiritual mountain top.  For in this
view there is no individual to be liberated, no personal karma to be
dissolved, no one to do the 'imagining', and imagination itself and the
object of imagination are also just more and more Maya.  Are we suddenly
enlightened for simply stating that all is Maya?  No.  Even materialistic
science teaches that view in its own way.   We still have to start from
where we are and try and understand what is 'around us' and so on. And it is
to help us in this task that HPB and the Masters offered us these superb
Teachings.


> >>And speaking of the higher spiritual principles, Atma-Buddhi:
> "Neither each separately, nor the two collectively, are of any more use
> to the body of man, than sunlight and its beams are for a mass of
> granite buried in the earth, unless the divine Duad is assimilated by,
> and reflected in, some consciousness."  (Key to Theosophy, p135)>>
>
> I have no problem at all with this quote, but I am at a loss
> as to how this has to do with anything you said. In fact, this
> quote substantiates what I have been saying. Spirituality
> or atma-buddhi may as well not exist for most people,
> because they are not aware of it--I said exactly this in a
> previous post. Why do you disagree with me and then
> turn around and provide quotes supporting me?

This would be a clever point to make if it were true.  This quote doesn't
substantiate what you were saying.  In your "previous post" you were
discussing personal beliefs in relation to the Law of Karma.  For I had
questioned your view that Karma depended on personal beliefs for it to act -
the example of 'gravity' if you remember.  For the record this is what you
actually said:

> Most people don't believe in "spiritual Laws" at all. For those
> people, such laws may as well not exist. To say that karma
> is *only* impersonal is plain wrong.

As for not understanding what that quote (From p135 of the Key) had to do
with "Individual Consciousness",  it stressed *why* individual consciousness
needed to be 'acquired'.  Referring to the Monads and the senseless shells
of early races of Humanity, HPB offers a good analogy when referring to the
Monad, Manas and the Form:

"It is like the breeze where there is no tree or branch to receive and
harbour it. It cannot affect the form where there is no agent of
transmission (Manas, "Mind") and the form knows it not."
(SD vol 2, p57)

> <<And the 'consciousness' refered to is MANAS. >>
>
> Ah!! Here may be your problem, Peter. No, it is NOT
> manas that she means. Manas is beneath the duad
> and thus is forever unaware of it. Manas is NOT
> consciousness, but rather the human mind. These
> two things have to be separated or you will get into
> great difficulty and misunderstanding.

Yes, it is Manas.  One of the useful things about giving qoutes is that
people like yourself and others on the list can check them at source and see
what is ACTUALLY said by the author devoid of my interpretions.  I will
repeat the qoute from HPB, but this time I will include the next few lines
which you would have seen if you had taken advantage of the reference I
gave.  So, in reference to Atma and Buddhi, HPB writes:

"2.  Buddhi.... Neither each separately, nor the two collectively, are of
any more use to the body of man, than sunlight and its beams are for a mass
of granite buried in the earth, unless the divine Duad is assimilated by,
and reflected in, some consciousness. Neither Atma nor Buddhi are ever
reached by Karma, because the former is the highest aspect of Karma, its
working agent of ITSELF in one aspect, and the other is unconscious on this
plane. This consciousness or mind is,

3. Manas, the derivation or product in a reflected form of Ahamkara, "the
conception of I," or EGO-SHIP. It is, therefore, when inseparably united to
the first two, called the SPIRITUAL EGO, and Taijasi (the radiant). This is
the real Individuality, or the divine man. It is this Ego which -- having
originally incarnated in the senseless human form animated by, but
unconscious (since it had no consciousness) of, the presence in itself of
the dual monad -- made of that human-like form a real man. It is that Ego,
that "Causal Body," which overshadows every personality Karma forces it to
incarnate into; and this Ego which is held responsible for all the sins
committed through, and in, every new body or personality -- the evanescent
masks which hide the true Individual through the long series of rebirths. "
(Key to Theosophy, p135-136)


As you will see from the above, not only is that consciousness MANAS, but it
can be "inseparably united" to Atma-Buddhi.  While you are correct to state
that consciousness exists on every plane. It is not correct to state that:

> Manas is beneath the duad and thus is forever unaware of it.

In a previous post you wrote:

>  Nor can you find me one quote that disavows anything I
>  have said. Why should I spend all my time and do all the
>  work when I doubt very much it will matter anyway?

I hope the above clarifies some of the Theosophical ideas associated with
Manas and Individual Consciousness.  But I confess I can begin to feel
myself agreeing with the sentiments in your last sentence.


Peter


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.