Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00591)

June 28 2005


Meditation & Patanjali

Dear Gerry:

We still seem apart on terms and some meanings.

"Moral" to me is virtue, is obeying the laws of the Universe voluntarily.

I recognize an aspect in myself that objects to this -- I call it the "Lower
self." And add that it is unbridled desire, passion, emotion, Kama. 

I view KAMA and MANAS as two separate "principles" -- or if you prefer, call
them "bodies." 

Here is the reason for THEOSOPHY saying ATMA is the only permanent PRINCIPLE
and has 6 "vehicles" (bodies ?) .

It seems reasonable to me.

-------------------------------
 
THE SEVENFOLD DIVISION

WHY NOT CHANGE THE DESIGNATION?

MR. Sinnett's book Esoteric Buddhism has done a great deal towards bringing
before the West the Eastern philosophy regarding man and his constitution,
but it has also served to perpetuate the use of a word that is misleading
and incorrect.
 
In that work on p. 61 he states, "Seven distinct principles are recognized
by Esoteric Science as entering into the constitution of man," and then
gives his scheme of division thus, The body, Vitality, Astral Body, Animal
Soul, Human Soul, Spiritual Soul, and seventh, Spirit or Atma.
 
Now if Spirit be, as the whole philosophy declares, in all and through all,
it is erroneous to call it one of the series. This very early led to the
accusation that we believed in seven distinct spirits in man. It always
leads to misconception, and directly tends to preventing our understanding
fully that the Atma includes, and is the substratum of, all the others. 

In India it caused a protracted and, at times, heated discussion between the
adherents of the rigid seven-fold classification of Esoteric Buddhism and
several learned and unlearned Hindus who supported a four-fold or five-fold
division. [S D I 157-8] 

During that debate the chief Hindu controverter [Mr. Subba Row], while
holding to a different system, admitted the existence of "a real esoteric
seven-fold classification," which of course cannot be given to the public.
Mr. Sinnett also evidently made a mistake when he said that the first
mentioned division is the esoteric one.

Now it would seem that many of these misconceptions and differences could be
prevented if a word were adopted and invariably used that would clearly
express the idea intended to be conveyed. 

As the prime declaration of theosophy is that all these so-called bodies and
appearances are for the purpose of enabling the ONE--the Atma--to fully
comprehend nature and "bring about the aim of the soul," why not denominate
all that it uses for that purpose as vehicles? 

This name is strictly in accord with all parts of the philosophy. It is in
effect the same as Upadhi, or basis, foundation, carrier. By its use we make
no error when we say that theosophy declares there is Atma, which works with
and through six vehicles. 

Strictly, the body is a vehicle for the astral body, it for the next, and so
on up to Atma, which is therefore seen to be all and in all, as is clearly
declared in Bhagavad-Gita.

This change, or to some other than "principles," should be adopted by all
theosophists, for every day there is more inquiry by new minds, and
theosophists themselves, indeed, need to use their words with care when
dealing with such subjects. 

Or if greater clearness is desired, let us say that there is one principle
which acts through six vehicles. The scheme will then stand thus:

ATMA	(spirit), one principle, indivisible

Its vehicles are:

 
Buddhi......................................................................
.......Spiritual Soul
 
Manas.......................................................................
......	Human Soul
Kama
Rupa.....................................................................
Animal Soul
Linga
Sharira.................................................................
Astral Body
Prana or
Jiva.................................................................
Vitality
 
Rupa........................................................................
........	The Body

Names have power, and if we go on talking of 7 principles when in truth
there is but one, we are continually clouding our conception of theosophic
truth.

EUSEBIO URBAN	Path, April, 1890
 
-------------------------------

So I am at fault when speaking or writing, as I often do, of 7 "principles."


You often write of "maya," I ask what is its cause ? Why is it necessary?
Why is any "veil" necessary in discussing human psychology, whether in
Buddhist or any other system or classification? 

If "maya" is temporary, and hence has only transitory value, then what is it
either bridging or concealing?

Can you help?

Dallas
 
=========================
-----Original Message-----

From: Gerald Schueler 
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:22 AM
To: 

Subject: RE: Meditation & Patanjali


<<"Higher SELF" and "Lower self" explains the duality and dichotomy of
man's moral nature (to me). >>


There is nothing moral about the Higher Self. There is nothing immoral
about the Lower Self. Neither of these exists the way they appear. Both are
our own imputations that we make onto the skandhas.


<<The WITNESS (OBSERVER, PERCEIVER) is the immortal SELF -- ATMA. The rest
are the aggregations of skandhas (monads) that form the "sheaths or
"tools," Including Manas. >>

Dal, last time I looked, atma was a principle, not a self nor a witness nor
an observer. In fact, Blavatsky clearly says that atma has to join with
buddhi as an upadhi in order to create the observer that she calls the
Higher Self. And this is a blind because buddhi is a principle and not an
upadhi. Last time I looked, manas was also a principle not a skandha or a
sheath. 

I think you may be confounding the principles and bodies. I see
Theosophists doing this all the time, and did so myself for a long time.
The principles are all universal. There is no "my" manas or "your" manas.
Manas is the principle of cognition and mentation. It is the same in me as
it is in you and everyone else. What is unique to each of us are our
skandhas. My skandhas are unique to me, and are not your skandhas which are
unique to you. The skandhas have to do with our personal karma, just as the
principles relate to our collective karma.. 

The five skandhas that comprise most of us are impure, or what is called
defiled. When we purify them, they become the five Dhyani-Buddhas. These
skandhas, whether pure or impure are joined with the five elements that
comprise the universe, and when these are purifed they become the five
feminine consorts of the five masculine Dhyani-Buddhas. Impure skandhas are
called the lower self. Purifed skandhas are called the higher self. Impure
elements are called matter. Purified elements are called spirit. The
skandhas taken collectively together are our "self" as both mind and body.
The elements that comprise them, taken collectively together are our
"world." Visualization followed by identification of the dhyani-buddhas in
sexual union with their consorts, when done properly, allows us to merge
our self with our world, and experience a corresponding samadhi or mystical
experience.

I have no doubt at all that Blavatsky knew the above, which is Tibetan
Vajrayana Buddhism 101. But she apparently considered it to be too much for
her readers to digest, just as it is probably too much for you, Dal, to
digest. So she used blinds in order to make things a bit easier. The
problem with using blinds is that they tend to mislead. She deliberately
used the term monad where self would do, and she used principles as if they
were skandhas. Manas means the human mind in Hinduism. Not so in Buddhism
which uses citta, and Blavatsky was a Buddhist. And she always said
"principles" in an attempt to show a clear path through her blind. The
principles are collective or universal. The skandhas, which include minds
and bodies or sheaths are personal. 


<<As I see it, HPB does not 'GROW.' >>

Dal, you have her on way too high a pedestal. One cannot live without
growth, my friend. The body is a physical expression of the mind, and a
growing body expresses a growing mind.

 
<<From 1877 to 1891, as her students, corresponded, asked and themselves
altered words and descriptions, so the theosophical vocabulary became more
stable and exact -- as THEY grew and understood more, she (and the Masters
in Their answers) altered the descriptions, she wrote far better in
English than most of us can, even now. >>

I do not disagree with what you are saying here. When the student is ready,
the master will appear. As her students grrew spiritually and were ready
for more, she gave it to them. This in no way implies that she did not grow
herself. Every time her Masters fed her new information, she grew.

 
<<I recall that the Master K H at one point imparted to her his knowledge
of English, and in addition, she stated [in her letters to her family --
reproduced in PATH, Vols. 8, and 9 ] >>

Agreed. It is interesting that KH, who apparently lived in Tibet and made
long stays in India, had a better grasp of English than Blavatsky. 


<< that her personality was at times (with her active permission and
assistance) "used" by other "Masters" (when Karma permitted), and when
exact answers within their specialties, were needed in writing or in direct
answers to interlocutors.>>

Agreed. In another sense we can say that she "used" those other Masters,
which I think is more to the point. Blavatsky never wanted to say "I am an
Adept" and for several good reasons. By having her use the Masters she
becomes the Adept that she was. She did not want this. By having the
Masters use her instead, she avoids this problem. I think that being a
woman in a male-dominated world was just one reason she said this; she
needed her "authority" to be male else her message would never be accepted
by the public. 


<< I would not accuse the Masters of inadequate knowledge and the wisdom
of when and how to use it. Her answers in TRANSACTIONS are a case in point.
Her knowledge of ancient history, of religious development and change, and
of esotericism are further "proofs" for me. >>

I do not disagree here. But she freely acknowledged that she was only
giving out what was "allowed" and was holding the rest back. Now, if this
is taken literally then she was an elitist. So, take it the way she meant
it, which is not literal. She actually held nothing back at all. It is all
there is her writings. But it is covered over by blinds. However, she gave
out enough hints so that these blinds can be seen through.


<<Read through the whole series of writings from (1877) ISIS UNVEILED, and
the (1880-84) MAHATMA LETTERS on to MY BOOKS -- as I see it, there is
continuity and exactness there. >>

Yes, it is there, if you can find it. There is also growth and an increase
in spiritual depth.


<<Best wishes, 
Dallas >>

And to you,

Jerry S.