Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00196)

Steve:

As far as I can say the Higher self is always aware of the Lower Self and
vice versa. But the lower self desires its isolations and selfishness and
therefore tries to hide from the HIGHER. But it cannot escape INTUITION nor
can it evade virtue.

I have a number of your notes to answer but seem to be so short of time.

Will try to do so.

MANAS is three-fold and Lower manas is a "devil" of an advocate. But its
vision does not extend beyond this one life. Any concept we have of
continuity and immortality is derived directly from the Higher Self -- See
Trans, PP 64-6. 

Dallas
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Levey [mailto:sallev1@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 8:42 AM
To: theosophia@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [theosophia] Re: IMMORTALITY ?



Dal-Would you say that the true preception of ourselves is dependent
upon our use of meditation/contemplation, as Patanjali seems to
allude. I believe Domodar Mavlankar intends the same thing?

Steve
--- In theosophia@yahoogroups.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck"
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
> 
> Feb 6th 2005
> 
> 
> IMMORTALITY
> 
> 1. Immortal -- are We?
> 
> 2. Buddhism and Theosophy (and immortality)
> 
> 3. Manas and Immortality (Nous and Mind -- Immortality)
> 
> 4. Immortality is to be Won.
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> There are endless references to "immortality" in HPB's writings,
enough to
> form a small book in itself, the passages below give some idea how
central
> this notion is.
> 
> IMMORTALITY (in the Key)
> 
> 
> "ENQUIRER. I was told that the Theosophical Society was originally
founded
> to crush Spiritualism and belief in the survival of the individuality in
> man?
> 
> THEOSOPHIST. You are misinformed. Our beliefs are all founded on that
> immortal individuality. But then, like so many others, you confuse
> personality with individuality. " (Key to Theosophy, page 32)
> 
> 
> "Matter, deprived of its soul and spirit, or its divine essence, cannot
> speak to the human heart. But the identity of the soul and spirit,
of real,
> immortal man, as Theosophy teaches us, once proven and deep-rooted
in our
> hearts, would lead us far on the road of real charity and brotherly
> goodwill." (Key.. page 43)
> 
> 
> "Let once man's immortal spirit take possession of the temple of his
body,
> drive out the money-changers and every unclean thing, and his own divine
> humanity will redeem him, for when he is thus at one with himself he
will
> know the 'builder of the Temple.'" (Key.. page 53)
> 
> 
> BUDDHISM AND THEOSOPHY (and Immortality)
> 
> 
> As to whether HPB's affiliation with Buddhism meant she did not
believe we
> are immortal can be found in her response to the question below:
> 
> 
> "ENQUIRER. But we are distinctly told that most of the Buddhists do not
> believe in the Soul's immortality?
> 
> THEOSOPHIST. No more do we, if you mean by Soul the personal Ego, or
> life-Soul -- Nephesh. But every learned Buddhist believes in the
individual
> or divine Ego. Those who do not, err in their judgment. They are as
mistaken
> on this point, as those Christians who mistake the theological
> interpolations of the later editors of the Gospels about damnation and
> hell-fire, for verbatim utterances of Jesus. Neither Buddha nor "Christ"
> ever wrote anything themselves, but both spoke in allegories and
used "dark
> sayings," as all true Initiates did, and will do for a long time yet to
> come. Both Scriptures treat of all such metaphysical questions very
> cautiously, and both, Buddhist and Christian records, sin by that
excess of
> exotericism; the dead letter meaning far overshooting the mark in both
> cases." (Key.. page 77)
> 
> 
> 
> MANAS AND INDIVIDUALITY (Immortals)
> 
> 
> What is this "individual or divine Ego" which HPB refers to as being
> immortal? HPB invites us to see that there is more to the human
> constitution than the personal Ego (the personality) and the SELF. 
There is
> an intermediary aspect to consider, referred to quite often simply
as the
> INDIVIDUALITY. This is intimately connected to the fifth principle,
MANAS,
> (a term HPB uses in its esoteric not exoteric sense).
> 
> 
> "There is but one real man, enduring through the cycle of life and
immortal
> in essence, if not in form, and this is Manas, the Mind-man or embodied
> Consciousness." (Key... page 100)
> 
> 
> In the Theosophical Glossary, HPB distinguishes two meanings applied
to the
> term MANAS. The first being the normal Sanskrit definition "the mind",
> "mental faculty" etc. However she then goes on to define it as:
> 
> "Esoterically, however it means, when unqualified, the Higher Ego,
or the
> sentient reincarnating Principle in man. When qualified it is called by
> Theosophists Buddhi-Manas or the Spiritual Soul in contradistinction
to its
> human reflection - Kama-Manas" (Theosophical Glossary)
> 
> 
> 
> PLATO'S "NOUS" and Immortality
> 
> 
> Discussing the similarity between Plato's teachings and Theosophy HPB
> writes:
> 
> 
> "The Nous [Atma-Buddhi] is the spirit (whether in Kosmos or in man),
and the
> logos [Manas], whether Universe or astral body, the emanation of the
former,
> the physical body being merely the animal. Our external powers perceive
> phenomena; our Nous alone is able to recognise their noumena. It is the
> logos alone, or the noumenon, that survives, because it is immortal
in its
> very nature and essence, and the logos in man is the Eternal Ego,
that which
> reincarnates and lasts for ever." (Key.. page 93)
> 
> 
> 
> MANAS AND IMMORALITY
> 
> 
> Returning to the KEY, HPB gives some outline of the role and function of
> Manas in relation to immortality.
> 
> 
> "we have Manas (or the Soul in general) in its two aspects: when
attaching
> itself to Anoia (our Kama rupa, or the "Animal Soul" in "Esoteric
> Buddhism,") it runs towards entire annihilation, as far as the
personal Ego
> is concerned; when allying itself to the Nous (Atma-Buddhi) it
merges into
> the immortal, imperishable Ego, and then its spiritual consciousness
of the
> personal that was, becomes immortal." (Key.. page 93)
> 
> The distinction between personal Ego(Kama-Manas), the Individuality
(Higher
> Manas) and SELF (Monad, Atma-Buddhi) is a helpful one for
understanding the
> last part of the passage above. As far as I understand it, what HPB is
> suggesting in the KEY (and the same is repeated a number of ways in the
> "Mahatma Letters") is that while the personality is clearly not
immortal and
> lasts but the length of one lifetime, any spiritual aspirations or
elements
> of the personal consciousness that reflect in some way the more
universal
> principles (e.g.: Altruism, Oneness & so on) are immortalized. Those
> elements
> of the personal consciousness that tend towards selfishness,
separatism, the
> 'instinctual' nature, perish. Referring to the former...
> 
> 
> "...the personal consciousness can hardly last longer than the
personality
> itself, can it? And such consciousness, as I already told you,
survives only
> throughout Devachan, after which it is reabsorbed, first, in the
individual,
> and then in the universal consciousness." (Key... page 107)
> 
> 
> So it is not Manas, or rather higher Manas, that is absorbed back into
> Buddhi
> at the end of each incarnation. It is the "spiritual consciousness
of the
> personal that was" that is absorbed into the Individuality, or rather
> Atma-Buddhi-Manas.
> 
> 
> PERSONALITY -- ITS FATE
> 
> 
> As for the selfish ("personal") tendencies:
> 
> 
> "ENQUIRER. You have just spoken of psuche running towards its entire
> annihilation if it attaches itself to Anoia. What did Plato, and
what do you
> mean by this?
> 
> THEOSOPHIST. The entire annihilation of the personal consciousness,
as an
> exceptional and rare case, I think. The general and almost
invariable rule
> is the merging of the personal into the individual or immortal
consciousness
> of the Ego, a transformation or a divine transfiguration, and the entire
> annihilation only of the lower quaternary." (Key.. page 94)
> 
> 
> 
> WINNING ONE'S IMMORTALITY
> 
> 
> HPB seems to suggest that while the immortality of the MONAD (i.e.:
> ATMA-BUDDHI) is a given, the immortality of this INDIVIDUALITY is
something
> that has to be won.
> 
> 
> "We say that we only allow the presence of the radiation of Spirit
(or Atma)
> in the astral capsule, and so far only as that spiritual radiancy is
> concerned. We say that man and Soul have to conquer their immortality by
> ascending towards the unity with which, if successful, they will be
finally
> linked and into which they are finally, so to speak, absorbed."
> (Key, page 101)
> 
> 
> IMMORALITY AND BUDDHISM
> 
> 
> Rather than this being anti-Buddhist, HPB states this is also the
teaching
> of esoteric Buddhism.
> 
> 
> "The whole esotericism of the Buddhistic philosophy is based on this
> mysterious teaching, understood by so few persons, and so totally
> misrepresented by many of the most learned modern scholars. Even
> metaphysicians are too inclined to confound the effect with the
cause. An
> Ego who has won his immortal life as spirit will remain the same
inner self
> throughout all his rebirths on earth; but this does not imply
necessarily
> that he must either remain the Mr. Smith or Mr. Brown he was on
earth, or
> lose his individuality. Therefore, the astral soul and the
terrestrial body
> of man may, in the dark hereafter, be absorbed into the cosmical
ocean of
> sublimated elements, and cease to feel his last personal Ego (if it
did not
> deserve to soar higher), and the divine Ego still remain the same
unchanged
> entity, though this terrestrial experience of his emanation may be
totally
> obliterated at the instant of separation from the unworthy vehicle."
> (Key... page 104)
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT IS IT THAT EARNS ITS IMMORALITY?
> 
> 
> However there is an interesting passage, easy to miss, that points
to a real
> mystery, as I see it:
> 
> 
> "Both the human Spirit (or the individuality), the re-incarnating
Spiritual
> Ego, and Buddhi, the Spiritual soul, are pre-existent. But, while
the former
> exists as a distinct entity, an individualization, the soul exists as
> pre-existing breath, an unscient portion of an intelligent whole.
Both were
> originally formed from the Eternal Ocean of light; but as the
> Fire-Philosophers, the mediaeval Theosophists, expressed it, there is a
> visible as well as invisible spirit in fire." (Key... page 106)
> 
> 
> If immortality is something that has to be conquered how is it that the
> Individuality is "pre-existent"? A clue to this may be found in the
> following question-answer found in the Secret Doctrine. It touches
on the
> nature of mind, Manas, and shows that from the esoteric standpoint it is
> considered as more than just a faculty.
> 
> 
> 
> "What is human mind in its higher aspect, whence comes it, if it is
not a
> portion of the essence -- and, in some rare cases of incarnation,
the very
> essence -- of a higher Being: one from a higher and divine plane."
> (Secret Doctrine, vol 2, 81)
> 
> 
> This of course requires an understanding of those 'spiritual
intelligences'
> referred to as the Dhyan Chohans and Dhyani Buddhas. Perhaps one
can say
> that the latter are those who have "reached but rejected Nirvana" in
> previous cycles, manvantara and They have remained active within the
> atmosphere of the World -- perhaps as Nirmanakayas, (SD II 79-80, 93-4,
> VOICE, p. 77-8 fn) and therefore they are placed in our conception
at a far
> higher spiritual stage in the current cycle. There are a number of
> references in the Secret Doctrine that the Individual Monad lasts even
> through Nirvana and Pralaya. Reference to this can also be found in
THE KEY
> TO THEOSOPHY:
> 
> 
> "When the spirit, in Buddhistic parlance, enters Nirvana, it loses
objective
> existence, but retains subjective being. To objective minds this is
becoming
> absolute "nothing"; to subjective, NO-THING, nothing to be displayed to
> sense. Thus, their Nirvana means the certitude of individual
immortality in
> Spirit, not in Soul, which, though "the most ancient of all things," is
> still -- along with all the other Gods -- a finite emanation, in
forms and
> individuality, if not in substance." (Key.. page 116)
> 
> 
> 
> ATMA AND ANATMA
> 
> 
> A while ago we looked at the notion of "anatman" and "anatta" which
loosely
> translated meant "no-self". It was suggested that as Atman was in
everything
> it was impossible to believe that there was no Atman (Self) in each
person.
> Yet as Atman is a radiation of Universal Spirit and can be neither
yours no
> mine, it was suggested the translation would be better understood if it
> meant "no separate self".
> 
> 
> INDIVIDUALITY
> 
> 
> But is it possible that we confuse the notion of 'separate' self with
> Individuality? Here is a quote from the Secret Doctrine that gives one
> aspect of the nature of INDIVIDUALITY:
> 
> "This hierarchy of spiritual Beings, through which the Universal
Mind comes
> into action, is like an army -- a "Host," truly -- by means of which the
> fighting power of a nation manifests itself, and which is composed
of army
> corps, divisions, brigades, regiments, and so forth, each with its
separate
> individuality or life, and its limited freedom of action and limited
> responsibilities; each contained in a larger individuality, to which
its own
> interests are subservient, and each containing lesser individualities in
> itself." SD 1, p. 38
> 
> In theosophy, Individuality is not something that exists on its own
> independent of the rest of Life as the above Hierarchy of Beings
suggests.
> The notion that we are separate, or have a 'separate self' seems to
arise
> out of our limited perceptions and 'ignorance' (Avidya).
'Individuality' is
> always an essential and integral aspect of something 'larger,' more
> embracing, which in turn is an essential aspect of something larger
(or more
> 'spiritual') still, and so on. We appear mentally .limited by our
present
> environment and physical sheath.
> 
> For example, Higher Manas (Buddhi-Manas) is regarded as the true
> Individuality in 'man' i.e., it is the Reincarnating Ego. Yet in the
Secret
> Doctrine there is that very suggestive passage wherein it is asked:
> 
> "What is human mind in its higher aspect, whence comes it, if it is
not a
> portion of the essence... of a higher Being; one from a higher and
divine
> plane?"
> (SD vol 2, p. 81)
> 
> When we reflect on the above along with the reference to the
Hierarchy of
> Beings it may offer us a clue to understanding what is referred to
in the
> "Three Fundamental Proposition of the S D " -- namely, the
acquirement of
> INDIVIDUALITY, i.e., "independent (conscious) existence" by the Pilgrim
> Soul occurs, first by natural impulse (which prepares the
"instrument" (or
> the lower vehicles - principles), and then after it being received as a
> "gift" from the great Gnanees (Dhyanis), it is refined and given its
> continuity by self-induced and self-devised efforts (checked by its
Karma).
> For with reference to that Hierarchy we read:
> 
> "Each class of Creators endows man with what it has to give: the one
builds
> his external form; the other gives him its essence, which later on
becomes
> the Human Higher Self owing to the personal exertion of the
individual.." 
> (SD 2, p. 95)
> 
> The building of "the external form" refers to the lower principles
in our
> sevenfold constitution, and this seems to be that part of the creative
> impulse which is referred to as "natural". This comes first because a
> 'vehicle' is required for the indwelling Spirit...
> 
> "it is only through a vehicle of matter that consciousness wells up
as 'I am
> I,' a physical basis being necessary to focus a ray of the Universal
Mind at
> a certain stage of complexity."	(SD 1, p. 15)
> 
> 
> ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS
> 
> Once MIND has been awakened in Man, the Monad is regarded as triple - 
> ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS. 
> 
> Up until this point we could say that everything, including each
blade of
> grass has the POTENTIALITY of 'self consciousness', but it is only
at the
> human stage evolution that it acquires it. From here on it is the
Manasic
> entity, the 'self-reflective' consciousness, that truly does the
round of
> rebirths and it is only through its own efforts does it lift itself, and
> therefore some aspect of all humanity, up to conscious Union with
> ATMA-BUDDHI. 
> 
> An essential part of this process requires that the Reincarnating
Ego learns
> through bitter experience what it is and especially what it is not. For
> countless incarnations it identifies with and clings to 'form', ie
desire,
> the seeking after pleasure, the avoidance of pain. For countless
> incarnations it 'perceives' itself as separate from others whilst
inhabiting
> the body-personality. 
> 
> Paradoxically, it has to 'separate' itself from this identification with
> form - to know that the "I am" is not 'this body', 'these thoughts and
> feelings' and so on, while at the same time realise that One-ness IS
("I am
> That"). We might also say that one of the first tasks is to awaken
from that
> sense of separateness whilst becoming truly centred in that
Individuality,
> which is "a portion of the essence of a higher Being, one from a
higher and
> divine plane."
> 
> Perhaps this conscious dis-identification with form / separateness, and
> striving towards an even 'deeper' INDIVIDUALITY is what is referred to
> below:
> 
> "This sentence: "The thread between the silent watcher and his
shadow (man)
> becomes stronger" -- with every re-incarnation -- is another
psychological
> mystery, that will find its explanation in Book II. 
> 
> 
> The WATCHER and its SHADOWS
> 
> 
> For the present it will suffice to say that the "Watcher" and his
"Shadows"
> -- the latter numbering as many as there are re-incarnations for the
monad
> -- are one. The Watcher, or the divine prototype, is at the upper
rung of
> the ladder of being; the shadow, at the lower. 
> 
> Withal, the Monad of every living being, unless his moral turpitude
breaks
> the connection and runs loose and "astray into the lunar path" -- to
use the
> Occult expression -- is an individual Dhyan Chohan, distinct from
others, a
> kind of spiritual individuality of its own, during one special
Manvantara. 
> 
> Its Primary, the Spirit (ATMAN) is one, of course, with Paramatma
(the one
> Universal Spirit), but the vehicle (Vahan) it is enshrined in, the
Buddhi,
> is part and parcel of that Dhyan-Chohanic Essence; and it is in this
that
> lies the mystery of that ubiquity, which was discussed a few pages
back. "My
> Father, that is in Heaven, and I - are one," -- says the Christian
> Scripture; in this, at any rate, it is the faithful echo of the esoteric
> tenet." (SD, vol 1, p. 265)
> 
> When we think of a Monad in terms of ATMA-BUDDHI and keep in mind
that both
> Atma and Buddhi are universal principles we may perhaps get a
glimpse of the
> potentiality and depth of what is referred to above as "spiritual
> individuality". Whatever it might mean in its fullness it is clearly
> something quite different to separateness. On the contrary it seems
to have
> everything to do with ONE-NESS.
> 
> Some further thoughts on this subject are beautifully expressed in the
> following passage:
> 
> The PARENT STAR
> 
> "The star under which a human Entity is born, says the Occult
teaching, will
> remain for ever its star, throughout the whole cycle of its
incarnations in
> one Manvantara. But this is not his astrological star. The latter is
> concerned and connected with the personality, the former with the
> INDIVIDUALITY. The "Angel" of that Star, or the Dhyani-Buddha will
be either
> the guiding or simply the presiding "Angel," so to say, in every new
rebirth
> of the monad, which is part of his own essence, though his vehicle,
man, may
> remain for ever ignorant of this fact. The adepts have each their
> Dhyani-Buddha, their elder "twin Soul," and they know it, calling it
> "Father-Soul," and "Father-Fire." It is only at the last and supreme
> initiation, however, that they learn it when placed face to face
with the
> bright "Image." How much has Bulwer Lytton known of this mystic fact
when
> describing, in one of his highest inspirational moods, Zanoni face
to face
> with his Augoeides?" (SD, vol 1, p. 573)
> 
> 
> REINCARNATION - NIRVANA
> 
> 
> To relate this to REINCARNATION in its broadest sense the passage below
> gives a hint at what follows the supreme initiation. Speaking of
absorption
> in Nirvana:
> 
> "Nor is the individuality -- nor even the essence of the
personality, if any
> be left behind -- lost, because re-absorbed. For, however limitless
-- from
> a human standpoint -- the paranirvanic state, it has yet a limit in
> Eternity. Once reached, the same monad will re-emerge therefrom, as
a still
> higher being, on a far higher plane, to recommence its cycle of
perfected
> activity. The human mind cannot in its present stage of development
> transcend, scarcely reach this plane of thought. It totters here, on the
> brink of incomprehensible Absoluteness and Eternity." (SD vol 1,p. 266)
> 
> In The VOICE OF THE SILENCE, at its conclusion (p. 77-8) we find the
> following inspiring explanation concerning the "spiritual robes"
> 
> "This same popular reverence calls "Buddhas of Compassion" those
> Bodhisattvas who, having reached the rank of an Arhat (i.e., having
> completed the fourth or seventh Path), refuse to pass into the Nirvanic
> state or "don the Dharmakaya robe and cross to the other shore," as
it would
> then become beyond their power to assist men even so little as Karma
> permits. 
> 
> They prefer to remain invisibly (in Spirit, so to speak) in the
world, and
> contribute toward man's salvation by influencing them to follow the Good
> Law, i.e., lead them on the Path of Righteousness. It is part of the
> exoteric Northern Buddhism to honour all such great characters ; .
on the
> other hand, the esoteric teachings countenance no such thing. There is a
> great difference between the two teachings. 
> 
> The exoteric layman hardly knows the real meaning of the word
> Nirmanakaya-hence the confusion and inadequate explanations of the
> Orientalists. For example Schlagintweit believes that Nirmanakaya-body,
> means the physical form assumed by the Buddhas when they incarnate on
> earth-"the least sublime of their earthly encumbrances" (vide
Buddhism in
> Tibet)-and he proceeds to give an entirely false view on the
subject. The
> real teaching is, however, this:
> 
> The three Buddhic bodies or forms are styled
> 
> 1. Nirmanakaya.
> 2. Sambhogakaya.
> 3. Dharmakaya.
> 
> The first [Nirmanakaya] is that ethereal form which one would
assume when
> leaving his physical he would appear in his astral body-having in
addition
> all the knowledge of an Adept. The Bodhisattva develops it in
himself as he
> proceeds on the Path. Having reached the goal and refused its
fruition, he
> remains on Earth, as an Adept; and when he dies, instead of going into
> Nirvana, he remains in that glorious body he has woven for himself,
> invisible to uninitiated mankind, to watch over and protect it.
> 
> Sambhogakaya is the same, but with the additional lustre of "three
> perfections," one of which is entire obliteration of all earthly
concerns.
> 
> The Dharmakaya body is that of a complete Buddha, i.e., no body at
all, but
> an ideal breath: Consciousness merged in the Universal Consciousness, or
> Soul devoid of every attribute. Once a Dharmakaya, an Adept or
Buddha leaves
> behind every possible relation with, or thought for this earth. 
> 
> Thus, to be enabled to help humanity, an Adept who has won the right to
> Nirvana, "renounces the Dharmakaya body" in mystic parlance; keeps,
of the
> Sambhogakaya, only the great and complete knowledge, and remains in his
> Nirmanakaya body. 
> 
> The Esoteric School teaches that Gautama Buddha with several of his
Arhats
> is such a Nirmanakaya, higher than whom, on account of the great
> renunciation and sacrifice to mankind there is none known." Voice, p.
> 77-8fn
> 
> ============================
> 
> Dallas






 
Yahoo! Groups Links