Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00882)

"W.Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net> wrote: 5/29/2006 7:45 AM

 

Dear Cass:                    Re:  NOUS

 

This seems important to me: 

 

Reconciliation of terms suggests:

 

The THEOSOPHY GLOSSARY { p. 234) defines NOUS when that term is used, as in The KEY TO THEOSOPHY, SECRET DOCTRINE , HPB articles :

 

NOUS. (Gr.).    A Platonic term for the Higher Mind [Buddhi-Manas -- DTB ] or Soul. It means Spirit [Higher-Manas, Buddhi-Manas -- DTB] as distinct from animal Soul—psyche [Lower Manas, Kama-Manas -- DTB]; divine consciousness or mind in man: Nous was the designation given to the Supreme deity (third logos) by Anaxagoras. Taken from Egypt where it was called Nout, it was adopted by the Gnostics for their first conscious Æon which, with the Occultists, is the third logos, cosmically, and the third “principle” (from above) or manas, in man. (See “Nout”.)

Cass: I read the Monad as follows:
Atma -Buddhi -Manas as the higher triad or Spirit.  Manas is a duality consisting of higher mind and lower mind.  Higher Mind or the Good Mind forms with Buddhi and Atma for the true higher triad.

Higher and Lower Manas-Kama Manas and Prana as the lower triad or Soul.  When we operate from both higher mind in our ideals and lower mind in our desires.

Lower Manas-Astral and Prana as the Personality or Ego

This is my own interpretation, but one that works for me.  Nous therefore is when Lower Manas has been transmuted into Higher Manas and all our thoughts are manifested ideals. Our consciousness is focused on our higher spiritual make-up rather than on the lower soul make-up, but certainly this is above someone who consistently works out of the lower personality or ego.   I am thinking that Socrates was in a transitional state, as he acknowledges his daemon as knowing all and he (Socrates) knowing not all.  

 

NOUT. (Gr.). In the Pantheon of the Egyptians it meant the “One- only-One”, because they did not proceed in their popular or exoteric religion higher than the third manifestation which radiates from the Unknown and the Unknowable, the first unmanifested and the second logoi in the esoteric philosophy of every nation. The Nous of Anaxagoras was the Mahat of the Hindu Brahmâ, the first manifested Deity— “the Mind or Spirit self-potent”; this creative Principle being of course the PRIMUM MOBILE OF EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE—its Soul and Ideation. (See “Seven Principles” in man.)

 Cass: The egyptian equivalent of this would be
Osiris, Isis and Thoth  (which is a duality of lower and higher) or if you like Osiris, Isis and Higher Thoth as the higher triad.

The lower triad composing
Lower Thoth, Set and Nephthys.

But I could be wrong.

"We give below in a tabular form the classifications adopted by the Buddhist and Vedantic teachers of the principles of man:—

* Kosa (kosha) is "Sheath" literally, the sheath of every principle. 
† "Life." 
‡ The astral body or Linga Sarira. 
§ Sthula-Upadhi, or basis of the principle. 
∫∫ Buddhi. 

Cass: My understanding of the Brahman system is Atma-Buddhi- Manas-Kama-Sthula.  Again Manas being a duality of upper and lower mind.

Cass: Sthula, Nephthys, and Prana being  the principle and the etheric double as the vehicle, as it is here that our chakras are located. 

The student will now be better prepared to see that between the three Upadhis of the Raja Yoga and its Atma, and our three Upadhis, Atma, and the additional three divisions, there is in reality but very little difference. Moreover, as every adept in cis-Himalayan or trans-Himalayan India, of the Patanjali, the Aryasanga or the Mahayana schools, has to become a Raja Yogi, he must, therefore, accept the Taraka Raja classification in principle and theory whatever classification he resorts to for practical and occult purposes. Thus, it matters very little whether one speaks of the three Upadhis with their three aspects and Atma, the eternal and immortal synthesis, or calls them the "seven principles."          S D   I  157-8

Cass: The seven principles for me are
Atma, Buddhi, Higher Manas, Lower Manas, Kama Manas,Physical Body,and Prana which works, as I said through the Etheric double of the physical body.

I think as long as we have in our own minds the divisions, it's not really a concern how the different schools have interpreted them. IMO

Cheers
Cass

 

Best wishes

 

 

Dallas

 

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

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Cass Silva
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 8:51 PM
To: 

 Re: Dallas, Socrates & Subba Row

 

I thought Nous, was translated as "good at being a man"?  Pure and mixed suggests the duality of  higher and lower mind.

 

Galileo retracted and wasn't persecuted.  Apollonious was not persecuted, he simply vanished.

Cass

 

carlosaveline  wrote: Dear Dallas, 

 

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

 

Not quite, Dallas. 

 

Better then 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 Daemonï (a god, a Spirit).

            I U , Volume II, 284-285.) 

 

 



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



 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 





		
---------------------------------
Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone.  Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice

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