Part 13

THEO. Not at all. But immortality cannot touch the _non-existent_: for all that which exists as SAT, or emanates from SAT, immortality and Eternity are absolute. Matter is the opposite pole of spirit, and yet the two are one. The essence of all this, _i.e._, Spirit, Force and Matter, or the three in one, is as endless as it is beginningless; but the form acquired by this triple unity during its incarnations, its externality, is certainly only the illusion of our personal conceptions. Therefore do we call Nirvana and the Universal life alone a reality, while relegating the terrestrial life, its terrestrial personality included, and even its Devachanic existence, to the phantom realm of illusion.

ENQ. But why in such a case call sleep the reality, and waking the illusion?

THEO. It is simply a comparison made to facilitate the grasping of the subject, and from the standpoint of terrestrial conceptions it is a very correct one.

ENQ. And still I cannot understand, if the life to come is based on justice and the merited retribution for all our terrestrial suffering, how in the case of materialists, many of whom are really honest and charitable men, there should remain of their personality nothing but the refuse of a faded flower.

THEO. No one ever said such a thing. No materialist, however unbelieving, can die for ever in the fulness of his spiritual individuality. What was said is that consciousness can disappear either fully or partially in the case of a materialist, so that no conscious remains of his personality survive.

ENQ. But surely this is annihilation?

THEO. Certainly not. One can sleep a dead sleep and miss several stations during a long railway journey, without the slightest recollection or consciousness, and awake at another station and continue the journey past innumerable other halting-places till the end of the journey or the goal is reached. Three kinds of sleep were mentioned to you: the dreamless, the chaotic, and the one which is so real, that to the sleeping man his dreams become full realities. If you believe in the latter why can’t you believe in the former; according to the after life a man has believed in and expected, such is the life he will have. He who expected no life to come will have an absolute blank, amounting to annihilation, in the interval between the two rebirths. This is just the carrying out of the programme we spoke of, a programme created by the materialists themselves. But there are various kinds of materialists, as you say. A selfish, wicked Egoist, one who never shed a tear for anyone but himself, thus adding entire indifference to the whole world to his unbelief, must, at the threshold of death, drop his personality for ever. This personality having no tendrils of sympathy for the world around and hence nothing to hook on to Sutratma, it follows that with the last breath every connection between the two is broken. There being no Devachan for such a materialist, the Sutratma will reincarnate almost immediately. But those materialists who erred in nothing but their disbelief will oversleep but one station. And the time will come when that ex-materialist will perceive himself in the Eternity and perhaps repent that he lost even one day, one station, from the life eternal.

ENQ. Still, would it not be more correct to say that death is birth into a new life, or a return once more into eternity?

THEO. You may if you like. Only remember that births differ, and that there are births of “still-born” beings, which are _failures_ of nature. Moreover, with your Western fixed ideas about material life, the words “living” and “being” are quite inapplicable to the pure subjective state of _post-mortem_ existence. It is just because, save in a few philosophers who are not read by the many, and who themselves are too confused to present a distinct picture of it, it is just because your Western ideas of life and death have finally become so narrow, that on the one hand they have led to crass materialism, and on the other, to the still more material conception of the other life, which the spiritualists have formulated in their Summer-land. There the souls of men eat, drink, marry, and live in a paradise quite as sensual as that of Mohammed, but even less philosophical. Nor are the average conceptions of the uneducated Christians any better, being if possible still more material. What between truncated angels, brass trumpets, golden harps, and material hell-fires, the Christian heaven seems like a fairy scene at a Christmas pantomime.

It is because of these narrow conceptions that you find such difficulty in understanding. It is just because the life of the disembodied soul, while possessing all the vividness of reality, as in certain dreams, is devoid of every grossly objective form of terrestrial life, that the Eastern philosophers have compared it with visions during sleep.

DEFINITE WORDS FOR DEFINITE THINGS.

ENQ. Don’t you think it is because there are no definite and fixed terms to indicate each “Principle” in man, that such a confusion of ideas arises in our minds with respect to the respective functions of these “Principles”?

THEO. I have thought of it myself. The whole trouble has arisen from this: we have started our expositions of, and discussion about, the “Principles” using their Sanskrit names instead of coining immediately, for the use of Theosophists, their equivalents in English. We must try and remedy this now.

ENQ. You will do well, as it may avoid further confusion; no two theosophical writers, it seems to me, have hitherto agreed to call the same “Principle” by the same name.

THEO. The confusion is more apparent than real, however. I have heard some of our Theosophists express surprise at, and criticize several essays speaking of these “principles”; but, when examined, there was no worse mistake in them than that of using the word “Soul” to cover the three principles without specifying the distinctions. The first, as positively the clearest of our Theosophical writers, Mr. A. P. Sinnett, has some comprehensive and admirably-written passages on the “Higher Self.”[45] His real idea has also been misconceived by some, owing to his using the word “Soul” in a general sense. Yet here are a few passages which will show to you how clear and comprehensive is all that he writes on the subject:—

... “The human soul, once launched on the streams of evolution as a human individuality,[46] passes through alternate periods of physical and relatively spiritual existence. It passes from the one plane, or stratum, or condition of nature to the other under the guidance of its Karmic affinities; living in incarnations the life which its Karma has pre-ordained; modifying its progress within the limitations of circumstances, and,—developing fresh Karma by its use or abuse of opportunities,—it returns to spiritual existence (Devachan) after each physical life,—through the intervening region of Kamaloca—for rest and refreshment and for the gradual absorption into its essence, as so much cosmic progress, of the life’s experience gained ‘on earth’ or during physical existence. This view of the matter will, moreover, have suggested many collateral inferences to anyone thinking over the subject; for instance, that the transfer of consciousness from the Kamaloca to the Devachanic stage of this progression would necessarily be gradual[47]; that in truth, no hard-and-fast line separates the varieties of spiritual conditions; that even the spiritual and physical planes, as psychic faculties in living people show, are not so hopelessly walled off from one another as materialistic theories would suggest; that all states of nature are all around us simultaneously, and appeal to different perceptive faculties; and so on.... It is clear that during physical existence people who possess psychic faculties remain in connection with the planes of superphysical consciousness; and although most people may not be endowed with such faculties, we all, as the phenomena of sleep, even, and especially ... those of somnambulism or mesmerism, show, are capable of entering into conditions of consciousness that the five physical senses have nothing to do with. We—the souls within us—are not as it were altogether adrift in the ocean of matter. We clearly retain some surviving interest or rights in the shore from which, for a time, we have floated off. The process of incarnation, therefore, is not fully described when we speak of an _alternate_ existence on the physical and spiritual planes, and thus picture the soul as a complete entity slipping entirely from the one state of existence to the other. The more correct definitions of the process would probably represent incarnation as taking place on this physical plane of nature by reason of an efflux emanating from the soul. The Spiritual realm would all the while be the proper habitat of the Soul, which would never entirely quit it; _and that non-materializable portion of the Soul which abides permanently on the spiritual plane may fitly_, perhaps, be spoken of as the HIGHER SELF.”

This “Higher Self” is ATMA, and of course it is “non-materializable,” as Mr. Sinnett says. Even more, it can never be “objective” under any circumstances, even to the highest spiritual perception. For _Atman_ or the “Higher Self” is really Brahma, the ABSOLUTE, and indistinguishable from it. In hours of _Samadhi_, the higher spiritual consciousness of the Initiate is entirely absorbed in the ONE essence, which is Atman, and therefore, being one with the whole, there can be nothing objective for it. Now some of our Theosophists have got into the habit of using the words “Self” and “Ego” as synonymous, of associating the term “Self” with only man’s higher individual or even personal “Self” or _Ego_, whereas this term ought never to be applied except _to the One universal Self_. Hence the confusion. Speaking of Manas, the “causal body,” we may call it—when connecting it with the Buddhic radiance—the “HIGHER EGO,” never the “Higher Self.” For even Buddhi, the “Spiritual Soul,” is not the SELF, but the vehicle only of SELF. All the other “_Selves_”—such as the “Individual” self and “personal” self—ought never to be spoken or written of without their qualifying and characteristic adjectives.

Thus in this most excellent essay on the “Higher Self,” this term is applied to the _sixth principle_ or _Buddhi_ (of course in conjunction with Manas, as without such union there would be no _thinking_ principle or element in the spiritual soul); and has in consequence given rise to just such misunderstandings. The statement that “a child does not acquire its _sixth_ principle—or become a morally responsible being capable of generating Karma—until seven years old,” proves what is meant therein by the HIGHER SELF. Therefore, the able author is quite justified in explaining that after the “Higher Self” has passed into the human being and saturated the personality—in some of the finer organizations only—with its consciousness “people with psychic faculties may indeed perceive this Higher Self through their finer senses from time to time.” But so are those, who limit the term “Higher Self” to the Universal Divine Principle, “justified” in misunderstanding him. For, when we read, without being prepared for this shifting of metaphysical terms,[48] that while “fully manifesting on the physical plane ... the Higher Self still remains a conscious spiritual Ego on the corresponding plane of Nature”—we are apt to see in the “Higher Self” of this sentence, “Atma,” and in the spiritual Ego, “Manas,” or rather Buddhi-Manas, and forthwith to criticise the whole thing as incorrect.

To avoid henceforth such misrepresentations, I propose to translate literally from the Occult Eastern terms their equivalents in English, and offer these for future use.

{ Atma, the inseparable ray of the Universal THE HIGHER { and ONE SELF. It is the God _above_, more SELF is { than within, us. Happy the man who succeeds { in saturating his _inner Ego_ with it!

THE SPIRITUAL { the Spiritual soul or _Buddhi_, in close union _divine_ { with _Manas_, the mind-principle, without EGO is { which it is no EGO at all, but only the Atmic { _Vehicle_.

{ _Manas_, the “Fifth” Principle, so called, { independently of Buddhi. The Mind-Principle THE INNER, { is only the Spiritual Ego when merged or HIGHER { _into one_ with Buddhi,—no materialist being “Ego” is { supposed to have in him _such_ an Ego, however { great his intellectual capacities. It is { the permanent _Individuality_ or the “Reincarnating { Ego.”

{ the physical man in conjunction with his { _lower_ Self, _i.e._, animal instincts, passions, THE LOWER, { desires, etc. It is called the “false personality,” or PERSONAL { and consists of the _lower Manas_ combined “Ego” is { with Kama-rupa, and operating { through the Physical body and its phantom { or “double.”

The remaining “Principle” “_Pranâ_,” or “Life,” is, strictly speaking, the radiating force or Energy of Atma—as the Universal Life and the ONE SELF,—ITS lower or rather (in its effects) more physical, because manifesting, aspect. Pranâ or Life permeates the whole being of the objective Universe; and is called a “principle” only because it is an indispensable factor and the _deus ex machinâ_ of the living man.

ENQ. This division being so much simplified in its combinations will answer better, I believe. The other is much too metaphysical.

THEO. If outsiders as well as Theosophists would agree to it, it would certainly make matters much more comprehensible.

FOOTNOTES:

[40] “Some things that I _do_ know of Spiritualism and some that I do _not_.”

[41] A few portions of this chapter and of the preceding were published in _Lucifer_ in the shape of a “Dialogue on the Mysteries of After Life,” in the January number, 1889. The article was unsigned, as if it were written by the editor, but it came from the pen of the author of the present volume.

[42] Iswara is the collective consciousness of the manifested deity, Brahma, _i.e._, the collective consciousness of the Host of Dhyan Chohans (_vide_ SECRET DOCTRINE); and Pragna is their individual wisdom.

[43] _Taijasi_ means the radiant in consequence of its union with Buddhi; _i.e._, Manas, the human soul, illuminated by the radiance of the divine soul. Therefore, Manas-taijasi may be described as radiant mind; the _human_ reason lit by the light of the spirit; and Buddhi-Manas is the revelation of the divine _plus_ human intellect and self-consciousness.

[44] Some Theosophists have taken exception to this phrase, but the words are those of Master, and the meaning attached to the word “unmerited” is that given above. In the T.P.S. pamphlet No. 6, a phrase, criticised subsequently in LUCIFER, was used which was intended to convey the same idea. In form, however, it was awkward and open to the criticism directed against it; but the essential idea was that men often suffer from the effects of the actions done by others, effects which thus do not strictly belong to their own Karma—and for these sufferings they of course deserve compensation.

[45] _Vide_ Transactions of the LONDON LODGE _of the Theos. Soc._, No. 7, Oct., 1885.

[46] The “reincarnating Ego,” or “Human Soul,” as he called it, the _Causal Body_ with the Hindus.

[47] The length of this “transfer” depends, however, on the degree of spirituality in the ex-personality of the disembodied Ego. For those whose lives were very spiritual this transfer, though gradual, is very rapid. The time becomes longer with the materialistically inclined.

[48] “Shifting of _Metaphysical terms_” applies here only to the shifting of their translated equivalents from the Eastern expressions; for to this day there never existed any such terms in English, every Theosophist having to coin his own terms to render his thought. It is nigh time then to settle on some definite nomenclature.

X. ON THE NATURE OF OUR THINKING PRINCIPLE.

THE MYSTERY OF THE EGO.

ENQ. I perceive in the quotation you brought forward a little while ago from the _Buddhist Catechism_ a discrepancy that I would like to hear explained. It is there stated that the Skandhas—memory included—change with every new incarnation. And yet, it is asserted that the reflection of the past lives, which, we are told, are entirely made up of Skandhas, “must survive.” At the present moment I am not quite clear in my mind as to what it is precisely that survives, and I would like to have it explained. What is it? Is it only that “reflection,” or those Skandhas, or always that same Ego, the Manas?

THEO. I have just explained that the reincarnating Principle, or that which we call the _divine_ man, is indestructible throughout the life cycle: indestructible as a thinking _Entity_, and even as an ethereal form. The “reflection” is only the spiritualised _remembrance_, during the Devachanic period, of the _ex-personality_, Mr. A. or Mrs. B.—with which the _Ego_ identifies itself during that period. Since the latter is but the continuation of the earth-life, so to say, the very acme and pitch, in an unbroken series, of the few happy moments in that now past existence, the _Ego_ has to identify itself with the _personal_ consciousness of that life, if anything shall remain of it.

ENQ. This means that the _Ego_, notwithstanding its divine nature, passes every such period between two incarnations in a state of mental obscuration, or temporary insanity.

THEO. You may regard it as you like. Believing that, outside the ONE Reality, nothing is better than a passing illusion—the whole Universe included—we do not view it as insanity, but as a very natural sequence or development of the terrestrial life. What is life? A bundle of the most varied experiences, of daily changing ideas, emotions, and opinions. In our youth we are often enthusiastically devoted to an ideal, to some hero or heroine whom we try to follow and revive; a few years later, when the freshness of our youthful feelings has faded out and sobered down, we are the first to laugh at our fancies. And yet there was a day when we had so thoroughly identified our own personality with that of the ideal in our mind—especially if it was that of a living being—that the former was entirely merged and lost in the latter. Can it be said of a man of fifty that he is the same being that he was at twenty? The _inner_ man is the same; the outward living personality is completely transformed and changed. Would you also call these changes in the human mental states insanity?

ENQ. How would _you_ name them, and especially how would you explain the permanence of one and the evanescence of the other?

THEO. We have our own doctrine ready, and to us it offers no difficulty. The clue lies in the double consciousness of our mind, and also, in the dual nature of the mental “principle.” There is a spiritual consciousness, the Manasic mind illumined by the light of Buddhi, that which subjectively perceives abstractions; and the sentient consciousness (the lower _Manasic_ light), inseparable from our physical brain and senses. This latter consciousness is held in subjection by the brain and physical senses, and, being in its turn equally dependent on them, must of course fade out and finally die with the disappearance of the brain and physical senses. It is only the former kind of consciousness, whose root lies in eternity, which survives and lives for ever, and may, therefore, be regarded as immortal. Everything else belongs to passing illusions.

ENQ. What do you really understand by illusion in this case?

THEO. It is very well described in the just-mentioned essay on “The Higher Self.” Says its author:

“The theory we are considering (the interchange of ideas between the _Higher Ego_ and the lower self) harmonizes very well with the treatment of this world in which we live as a phenomenal world of illusion, the spiritual plans of nature being on the other hand the noumenal world or plane of reality. That region of nature in which, so to speak, the permanent soul is rooted is more real than that in which its transitory blossoms appear for a brief space to wither and fall to pieces, while the plant recovers energy for sending forth a fresh flower. Supposing flowers only were perceptible to ordinary senses, and their roots existed in a state of Nature intangible and invisible to us, philosophers in such a world who divined that there were such things as roots in another plane of existence would be apt to say of the flowers, These are not the real plants; they are of no relative importance, merely illusive phenomena of the moment.”

This is what I mean. The world in which blossom the transitory and evanescent flowers of personal lives is not the real permanent world; but that one in which we find the root of consciousness, that root which is beyond illusion and dwells in the eternity.

ENQ. What do you mean by the root dwelling in eternity?

THEO. I mean by this root the thinking entity, the Ego which incarnates, whether we regard it as an “Angel,” “Spirit,” or a Force. Of that which falls under our sensuous perceptions only what grows directly from, or is attached to this invisible root above, can partake of its immortal life. Hence every noble thought, idea and aspiration of the personality it informs, proceeding from and fed by this root, must become permanent. As to the physical consciousness, as it is a quality of the sentient but lower “principle,” (Kama-rupa or animal instinct, illuminated by the lower _manasic_ reflection), or the human Soul—it must disappear. That which displays activity, while the body is asleep or paralysed, is the higher consciousness, our memory registering but feebly and inaccurately—because automatically—such experiences, and often failing to be even slightly impressed by them.

ENQ. But how is it that MANAS, although you call it _Nous_, a “God,” is so weak during its incarnations, as to be actually conquered and fettered by its body?

THEO. I might retort with the same question and ask: “How is it that he, whom you regard as ‘the God of Gods’ and the One living God, _is so weak_ as to allow evil (or the Devil) to have the best of _him_ as much as of all his creatures, whether while he remains in Heaven, or during the time he was incarnated on this earth?” You are sure to reply again: “This is a Mystery; and we are forbidden to pry into the mysteries of God.” Not being forbidden to do so by our religious philosophy, I answer your question that, unless a God descends as an _Avatar_, no divine principle can be otherwise than cramped and paralysed by turbulent, animal matter. Heterogeneity will always have the upper hand over homogeneity, on this plane of illusions, and the nearer an essence is to its root-principle, Primordial Homogeneity, the more difficult it is for the latter to assert itself on earth. Spiritual and divine powers lie dormant in every human Being; and the wider the sweep of his spiritual vision the mightier will be the God within him. But as few men can feel that God, and since, as an average rule, deity is always bound and limited in our thought by earlier conceptions, those ideas that are inculcated in us from childhood, therefore, it is so difficult for you to understand our philosophy.

ENQ. And is it this Ego of ours which is our God?