Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00840)

Dear Dallas, 

You quote me: "You ask in conclusion:  'So Socrates’ Daimon was his own higher self, Monad, Atma-Buddhi'."

Not quite, Dallas. 

Much better than me, let's see, please, H. P. B.'s words:

“The daemonium of Socrates was his nous [in Greek in the original], mind,
spirit, or understanding of the divine in it. ‘The nous [in Greek in the
original] of Socrates’, says Plutarch, ‘was pure and mixed itself with the
body no more than necessity required.... (...) The part that is plunged into
the body is called soul. But the incorruptible part is called the nous and
the vulgar think it is within them, as they likewise imagine the image from
a glass [ that is, a mirror ] to be in that glass. But the more intelligent,
who know it to be without, call it a Daemon’ (a god, a Spirit).” 

(“Isis Unveiled”, H. P. Blavatsky, T.U.P., Pasadena, CA, USA, 1988, Volume II, 284-285.) 

Please read "Aplogy of Socrates" and you will see whether Socrates, Plato'sx master, was above his time "Mystery Schools", in Ethics and in Ethics. 

And remember that persecution is the common lot of sages in all time -- Seneca, Bruno, Galilei, Appolonyus, so many others... 

The story of Subba Row is quite different. 

Subba Row died at 34 " et pour cause", as the French saying goes. 

There were reasons for that. 

No advanced disciple could do what he did with regard to HPB and the Master's work. Loyal in his heart, he lost his body. OK. 

Best regards, Carlos. 

De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Sun, 28 May 2006 07:25:16 -0700

Assunto:[Spam] Theos-World RE: Socrates' Higher Self or "Nous" The E S

> 5/28/2006 6:18 AM
> 
> Dear Carlos:
> 
> You ask in conclusion:
> 
> " So Socrates’ Daimon was his own higher self, Monad, Atma-Buddhi.
> " 
> 
> Let me offer the following thoughts: It seems to me in this case that the
> personality we know of historically as Socrates had not undergone the
> process of Lower-Self [Kama-Manas] purification which the "Mystery schools"
> in Plato's time still made available. 
> 
> I believe he was called "mediumistic" and was not therefore in full
> Buddhi-Manasic control of the highest aspect of his personality
> (Kama-Manas).
> 
> Under the rules then in force in Plato's time (those of the Mystery Schools)
> he had violated (unknowingly to himself) these by offering openly some items
> that where still most secret. 
> 
> Looking for another and more recent example of this we can find how shocked
> Subba Row was when he was asked by HPB to review and edit the first pages of
> the SECRET DOCTRINE -- copied by C. Wachtmeister and sent to him in Mss. at
> Adyar. 
> 
> He (I conclude) must have found himself in conflict with his own pledges of
> secrecy as a Brahman. Yet it is said he had the same Guru as HPB.
> Apparently even such advanced chelas as SR have to develop and exert their
> independent Intuition over such matters . 
> 
> [ In any case, we are told that HPB had "special permission" granted to her
> to reveal facts that had hitherto been kept ESOTERIC -- see ISIS UNVEILED,
> Vol. II, p. 307 top ]
> 
> I will offer an opinion on what happened: 
> 
> There is a hint given by HPB, as she says that starting with the E S (1888)
> a change was given to the direction of exoteric theosophical work [The
> THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY in Adyar and Olcott swayed by the Council, had rejected
> her (1885) and the Masters directions and methods.] -- and she stated later
> that she would be solely responsible for the consequences of the changes she
> would make, and yet, retain fraternal relations with the many sections and
> branches of the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY every one of which she declared to be
> independent, and united under Col. Olcott, as President for Life. 
> 
> She lived for 3 years thereafter, and designated Judge (with 13 years of
> successful chelaship embodied in him) to carry on and direct the Esoteric
> Section after her passing. His ability and power in America caused the
> THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY to expand rapidly and spread to some extent Europe and
> Australia. Yet he (WQJ) was an ill person and had no desire to usurp Olcott,
> or to go to Adyar. 
> 
> Col. Olcott, though given a charter for the Esoteric Section in the East,
> chose to have nothing to do with it. A B in England and Europe, chose at
> first to fully assist judge, but then fell (under one of the 'tests' of
> chelaship, under a Brahman's dark psychic influence, and the psychic
> phenomena he produced, and the hints he advanced stating that she ought to
> begin to doubt HPB's Masters and Judge's direct connections to Them, and
> their sincerity. More confusion. A B discovered Olcott had the same kind
> of doubts. They joined forces apparently, to open the "Judge Case." .
> 
> All the rest followed -- fired by the single fact that never can the
> "esoteric" be proved or demonstrated by the exoteric. 
> 
> No one can PROVE the esoteric to anyone else. 
> 
> Each has to discover it IN HIMSELF: ATMA-BUDDHI the IMMORTAL HIGHER SELF.
> 
> The BUDDHI-MANAS is the MORAL INDIVIDUAL the ETERNAL Monad in incarnation.
> 
> All the virtues have to be lived openly and observed practically.
> 
> No personal claims have any value.
> 
> I write the above, it being only my opinion of the matters based on facts
> adduced.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Dallas
> 
> ==========================================================
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: carlosaveline
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 8:19 AM
> To: 
> Subject: Socrates' Higher Self or "Nous"
> 
> 
> Dallas, Friends, 
> 
> 
> H. P. Blavatsky writes in "Isis Unveiled": 
> 
> “The daemonium of Socrates was his nous [in Greek in the original], mind,
> spirit, or understanding of the divine in it. ‘The nous [in Greek in the
> original] of Socrates’, says Plutarch, ‘was pure and mixed itself with the
> body no more than necessity required.... (...) The part that is plunged into
> the body is called soul. But the incorruptible part is called the nous and
> the vulgar think it is within them, as they likewise imagine the image from
> a glass [ that is, a mirror ] to be in that glass. But the more intelligent,
> who know it to be without, call it a Daemon’ (a god, a Spirit).” (1) 
> 
> And in the “Mahatma Letters”, this statement is confirmed. Writing about
> the seventh and sixth principles of human consciousness, which form one’s
> Monad or higher self, an Adept-Teachers explains:
> 
> “Neither Atma or Buddhi ever were within man, a little metaphisical axiom
> that you can study with advantage in Plutarch and Anaxagoras. The latter
> made his [ Greek words for ‘nous’ ] the spirit self-potent, the nous that
> alone recognized noumena whhile the former taught on the authority of Plato
> and Pythagoras that the semomnius or this nous always remained without the
> body; that it floated and overshadowed so to say the extreme part of the
> man’s head, it is only the vulgar who think it is within them.” (2)
> 
> In the Christian tradition, the aureoles above the heads of Saints, in
> their portraits, are unconscious references to this fact. (3) 
> 
> So Socrates’ Daimon was his own higher self, Monad, Atma-Buddhi. 
> Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline 
> 
> NOTES: 
> 
> (1) “Isis Unveiled”, H. P. Blavatsky, T.U.P., Pasadena, CA, USA, 1988,
> Volume II, 284-285. 
> 
> (2) “The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett”, T.U.P., Letter CXXVII, p. 455
> (Letter 72 in the chronological edition, TPH, Philippines). 
> 
> (3) About the aureoles, see “Mahatma Letters”, T.U.P., Letter XXIII-B,
> item 9. (Letter 93-B, chronological edition). 
> 
> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]