Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00895)

Dallas

-----Original Message-----
From: W.Dallas TenBroeck
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 8:01 AM
Subject: RE: Dallas, Socrates & Subba Row


5/29/2006 7:45 AM
 
Dear Cass:                    Re:  NOUS
 

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”.)
 
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.)
 
>From the SECRET DOCTRINE   ( p. 157-8):
 
This brings us directly to the septenary constitution of man; and as some discussion has arisen of late about the best classification to be adopted for the division of the microcosmic entity, two systems are now appended with a view to facilitate comparison. The subjoined short article is from the pen of Mr. T. Subba Row, a learned Vedantin scholar. He prefers the Brahmanical division of the Raja Yoga, and from a metaphysical point of view he is quite right. But, as it is a question of simple choice and expediency, we hold in this work to the "time-honoured" classification of the trans-Himalayan "Arhat Esoteric School." The following table and its explanatory text are reprinted from the "Theosophist" of Madras, and they are also contained in "Five Years of Theosophy":—
 
 
SEPTENARY DIVISION IN DIFFERENT INDIAN SYSTEMS. 
 
 
"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. 
 
>From the foregoing table it will be seen that the third principle in the Buddhist classification is not separately mentioned in the Vedantic division, as it is merely the vehicle of Prana. It will also be seen that the Fourth principle is included in the third Kosa (Sheath), as the same principle is but the vehicle of will-power, which is but an energy of the mind. It must also be noticed that the Vignanamaya Kosa is considered to be distinct from the Manomaya Kosa, as a division is made after death between the lower part of the mind, as it were, which has a closer affinity with the fourth principle than with the sixth; and its higher part, which attaches itself to the latter, and which is, in fact, the basis for the higher spiritual individuality of man. 
 
We may also here point out to our readers that the classification mentioned in the last column is, for all practical purposes, connected with Raja Yoga, the best and simplest. Though there are seven principles in man, there are but three distinct Upadhis (bases), in each of which his Atma may work independently of the rest. These three Upadhis can be separated by an Adept without killing himself. He cannot separate the seven principles from each other without destroying his constitution." 
 
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
 
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.  Apollonius was not persecuted, he simply vanished.
Cass
 
carlosaveline <carlosaveline@terra.com.br> wrote: Dear Dallas, 
 
You quote me: "You ask in conclusion: " So Socratesï¿ 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 Socratesï¿, 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.)