Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00047)

January 4, 2002


Dear Friends:

Re: REINCARNATION INDIVIDUALITY and Personality


If those who so eagerly debate today H P B's statements on
Reincarnation were aware, chronologically, of the many statements
made on the subject there would be no occasion (As I see it) for
confusion. The History of the diffusion of the Theosophical
teachings has to be known as well as the differences of language
used for a purpose. One may state that the concept of
Reincarnation was not well known when H P B first wrote, but as
the public became aware of it, the distinction between the
immortal EGOIC
INDIVIDUALITY, and the transitory and constantly eroding
PERSONALITY had to be made clear.

After the publication of ISIS UNVEILED there appeared in the
magazine THEOSOPHIST and elsewhere articles and answers to
questions that made the distinction clear.

The PERSONALITY, molded on the astral centers of force, was in
most cases dissipated at the end of a life. In very few
(extraordinary) cases was that same "astral body" ever used
again.

Normal reincarnation calls for a fresh "Astral" and :"Physical"
body to be fashioned by karma, and used at each incarnation of
the Ego.

This teaching as said, was made plain in articles and in the KEY
TO THEOSOPHY. (1898) and, in The SECRET DOCTRINE (1888).

The problem with the early expressions concerning reincarnation
including those made in a cautionary manner in ISIS UNVEILED
(period 1875-1877) would find them resolved in an August 1882
article H P B printed in THEOSOPHIST. It is titled: "ISIS
UNVEILED and the "THEOSOPHIST" on REINCARNATION." [ H P B
Articles Vol. I, p. 491 ]


====================	QUOTE	==========================


H P B ISIS UNVEILED and the THEOSOPHIST on REINCARNATION



"ISIS UNVEILED" AND THE "THEOSOPHIST" ON REINCARNATION
Article by H. P. Blavatsky
IN Light (July 8) C.C.M. quotes from the THEOSOPHIST (June 1882)
a sentence which appeared in the Editor's Note at the foot of an
article headed "Seeming Discrepancies." Then, turning to the
review of "The Perfect Way" in the same number, he quotes at
length from "an authoritative teaching of the later period," as
he adds rather sarcastically. Then, again, a long paragraph from
Isis. The three quotations and the remarks of our friend run
thus:
"There never was, nor can there be, any radical discrepancy
between the teachings in 'Isis' ('Isis Unveiled') and those of
this later period, as both proceed from one and the same
source--the ADEPT BROTHERS. (Editor's Note in Seeming
Discrepancies.")
Having drawn the attention of his readers to the above assertion
C.C.M. proceeds to show--as he thinks--its fallacy:
"To begin with, re-Incarnation--if other worlds besides this are
taken into account--is the regular routine of nature. But
re-Incarnation in the next higher objective world is one thing;
re-Incarnation on this earth is another. Even that takes place
over and over again till the highest condition of humanity, as
known on this earth, is attained, but not afterwards, and here is
the clue to the mystery.... But once let a man be as far
perfected by successive re-incarnations as the present race will
permit, and then his next re-incarnation will be among the early
growths of the next higher world, where the earliest growths are
far higher than the highest here. The ghastly mistake that the
modern re-lncarnationists make is in supposing that there can be
a return on this earth to lower bodily forms";--not, therefore,
that man is re-incarnated as man again and again upon this earth,
for that is laid down as truth in the above cited passages in the
most positive and explicit form." (Review of T.P.W. in the
Theosophist.)
And now for "Isis":
"We will now present a few fragments of this mysterious doctrine
of re-Incarnation--as distinct from metempsychosis--which we have
from an authority. Re-Incarnation, i.e., the appearance of the
same individual--or rather, of his astral monad--twice on the
same planet is not a rule in nature; it is an exception, like the
teratological phenomenon of a two-headed infant. It is preceded
by a violation of the laws of harmony of nature and happens only
when the latter, seeking to restore its disturbed equilibrium,
violently throws back into earth-life the astral monad, which has
been tossed out of the circle of necessity by crime or accident.
Thus in cases of abortion, of infants dying before a certain age,
and of congenital and incurable idiocy, nature's original design
to produce a perfect human being has been interrupted. Therefore,
while the gross matter of each of these several entities is
suffered to disperse itself at death through the vast realm of
being, the immortal Spirit and astral monad of the
individual--the latter having been set apart to animate a frame,
and the former to shed its divine light on the corporeal
organization--must try a second time to carry out the purpose of
the creative intelligence. If reason has been so far developed as
to become active and discriminative, there is no re-incarnation
on, this earth, for the three parts of the triune man have been
united together, and he is capable of running the race. But when
the new being has not passed beyond the condition of monad, or
when, as in the idiot, the trinity has not been completed, the
immortal spark which illuminates it has to re-enter on the
earthly planet, as it was frustrated in its first attempt. . . .
Further, the same occult doctrine recognizes another possibility,
albeit so rare and so vague that it is really useless to mention
it. Even the modern Occidental Occultists deny it, though it is
universally accepted in Eastern countries." . . .
This is the occasional return of the terribly depraved human
Spirits which have fallen to the eighth sphere--it is unnecessary
to quote the passage at length. Exclusive of that rare and
doubtful possibility, then "Isis"--I have quoted from volume I,
pp. 351-2--allows only three cases--abortion, very early death,
and idiocy--in which re-Incarnation on this earth occurs.
I am a long-suffering student of the mysteries, more apt to
accuse my own stupidity than to make "seeming discrepancies" an
occasion for scoffing. But after all, two and three will not make
just four; black is not white, nor, in reference to plain and
definite statements, is "Yes" equivalent to "No." If there is one
thing which I ardently desire to be taught, it is the truth about
this same question of re-Incarnation. I hope I am not, as a
dutiful Theosophist, expected to reconcile the statement of
"Isis" with that of this authoritative Reviewer. But there is one
consolation. The accomplished authoress of "Isis" cannot have
totally forgotten the teaching on this subject therein contained.
She, therefore, certainly did not dictate the statements of the
Reviewer. If I may conjecture that Koot Hoomi stands close behind
the latter, then assuredly Koot Hoomi is not, as has been
maliciously suggested, an alias for Madame Blavatsky.

"C.C.M."


We hope not--for Koot Hoomi's sake. Mme. B. would become too vain
and too proud, could she but dream of such an honour. But how
true the remark of the French classic: La critique est aisée,
mais l'art est difficile--though we feel more inclined to hang
our diminished head in sincere sorrow and exclaim: Et tu
Brute!--than to quote old truisms. Only, where that (even)
"seeming discrepancy" is to be found between the two
passages--except by those who are entirely ignorant of the occult
doctrine--will be certainly a mystery to every Eastern Occultist
who reads the above and who studies at the same school as the
reviewer of "The Perfect Way." Nevertheless the latter is chosen
as the weapon to break our head with. It is sufficient to read
No. 1 of the Fragments of Occult Truth, and ponder over the
septenary constitution of man into which the triple human entity
is divided by the occultists, to perceive that the "astral" monad
is not the "Spiritual" monad and vice versa. That there is no
discrepancy whatsoever between the two statements, may be easily
shown, and we hope will be shown, by our friend the "reviewer."
The most that can be said of the passage quoted from Isis is,
that it is incomplete, chaotic, vague, perhaps--clumsy, as many
more passages in that work, the first literary production of a
foreigner, who even now can hardly boast of her knowledge of the
English language. Therefore, in the face of the statement from
the very correct and excellent review of "The Perfect Way"--we
say again that "Reincarnation, i.e., the appearance of the same
individual--or rather, of his astral monad (or the personality as
claimed by the modern Reincarnationists)--twice on the same
planet is not a rule in nature "and that it is an exception." Let
us try once more to explain our meaning. The reviewer speaks of
the "Spiritual Individuality" or the Immortal Monad as it is
called, i.e. the 7th and 6th Principles in the Fragments. In Isis
we refer to the personality or the Finite astral monad, a
compound of imponderable elements composed of the 5th and 4th
principles. The former as an emanation of the ONE absolute is
indestructible; the latter as an elementary compound is finite
and doomed sooner or later to destruction with the exception of
the more spiritualized portions of the 5th principle (the Manas
or mind) which are assimilated by the 6th principle when it
follows the 7th to its "gestation state" to be reborn or not
reborn, as the case may be, in the Arupa Loka (the Formless
World). The seven principles, forming, so to say, a triad and a
Quaternary, or, as some have it a "Compound Trinity" subdivided
into a triad and two duads may be better understood in the
following groups of Principles :

And now we ask,--where is the "discrepancy" or contradiction?
Whether man was good, bad, or indifferent, Group II has to become
either a "shell," or to be once or several times more
reincarnated under "exceptional circumstances." There is a mighty
difference in our Occult doctrine between an impersonal
Individuality, and an individual Personality. C.C.M. will not be
reincarnated; nor will he be in his next re-birth C.C.M., but
quite a new being, born of the thoughts and deeds of C.C.M.: his
own creation, the child and fruit of his present life, the effect
of the causes he is now producing. Shall we say then with the
Spiritists that C.C.M., the man, we know, will be re-born again?
No; but that his divine Monad will be clothed thousands of times
yet before the end of the Grand Cycle, in various human forms,
every one of them a new personality. Like a mighty tree that
clothes itself every spring with a new foliage, to see it wither
and die towards autumn, so the eternal Monad prevails through the
series of smaller cycles, ever the same, yet ever changing and
putting on, at each birth, a new garment. The bud, that failed to
open one year, will re-appear in the next; the leaf that reached
its maturity and died a natural death--can never be re-born on
the same tree again. While writing Isis, we were not permitted to
enter into details; hence--the vague generalities. We are told to
do so now--and we do as we are commanded.
And thus, it seems, after all, that "two and three" will "make
just four," if the "three" was only mistaken for that number.
And, we have heard of cases when that, which was universally
regarded and denounced as something very "black"--shockingly
so--suddenly re-became "white," as soon as an additional light
was permitted to shine upon it. Well, the day may yet come when
even the much misunderstood occultists will appear in such a
light. Vaut mieux tard que jamais!
Meanwhile we will wait and see whether C.C.M. will quote again
from our present answer--in Light.
Theosophist, August, 1882
========================================

This Article explains the problem encountered. One ought also to
refer to H P B's article MY BOOKS, Lucifer May 1891; reprinted
in H P B Articles, (T. Co.) Vol. I, p 475; BLAVATSKY: Collected
Works (TPH) Vol. 13, p. 191 for some additional explanations as
to changes and usage of terminology.

As I say, one must know what THEOSOPHY teaches and also the
history of its transmission.

Best wishes,

Dallas.



============================

-----Original Message-----
From: G S [
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 7:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re to Brigitte

<<<Despite a sea of ink, spilled by her and others in an attempt
to explain the unexplainable, there can be no doubt that in her
New York years Blavatsky denied the reality of reincarnation in
the sense of reincarnation of the same individual on earth,
allowing only the exceptions stated by Randolph-and (unusually
for her early work) she emphasized that her position was derived
from ,,authority">>>>

Brigitte, as far as I know, Blavatsky always denied reincarnation
of the individual ego or personality. When did she ever change
this position? Where does she say that the ego reincarnates? (if
she does, then I am out of here)


<<<The meaning of these fairly clear statements and the conflict
of these views with Madame Blavatsky's later ideas on
reincarnation have been the subject of interminable debate among
Theosophists since the early 1880s-so much so that the editor of
the Theosophical University Press reprint of Isis Unveiled has
thought it necessary to include with the volumes several of
Madame Blavatsky's subsequent attempts at exegesis of the passage
cited.>>>

As far as I know, it was her students who misunderstood what she
wrote in Isis, and Blavatsky herself never changed her position
but rather simply clarified it. The "attempt at exegesis" in
TUP's printing of Isis is the very article that caused me to join
the TS many years ago BECAUSE in it she rejects reincarnation of
ego, which the Gita suggests is exactly what happens and for
which reason I have never cared for the Gita. The main problem,
for me, is that while she rejected ego-reincarnation she suggests
a permanent reality of the Reincarnating Ego or Individuality
alias Higher Self, and it is this that has led so many of her
followers astray. She rejects personality while accepting
individuality, which simply trades one type of self for another.

Jerry S.
--



---