Part 7

THEO. Take as a first comparison and a help towards a more correct conception, the solar year, and as a second, the two halves of that year, producing each a day and a night of six months’ duration at the North Pole. Now imagine, if you can, instead of a Solar year of 365 days, ETERNITY. Let the sun represent the universe, and the polar days and nights of 6 months each—_days and nights lasting each 182 trillions and quadrillions of years_, instead of 182 days each. As the sun arises every morning on our _objective_ horizon out of its (to us) _subjective_ and antipodal space, so does the Universe emerge periodically on the plane of objectivity, issuing from that of subjectivity—the antipodes of the former. This is the “Cycle of Life.” And as the sun disappears from our horizon, so does the Universe disappear at regular periods, when the “Universal night” sets in. The Hindoos call such alternations the “Days and Nights of Brahma,” or the time of _Manvantara_ and that of _Pralaya_ (dissolution). The Westerns may call them Universal Days and Nights if they prefer. During the latter (the nights) _All is in All_; every atom is resolved into one Homogeneity.

EVOLUTION AND ILLUSION.

ENQ. But who is it that creates each time the Universe?

THEO. No one creates it. Science would call the process evolution; the pre-Christian philosophers and the Orientalists called it emanation: we, Occultists and Theosophists, see in it the only universal and eternal _reality_ casting a periodical reflection of _itself_ on the infinite Spatial depths. This reflection, which you regard as the objective _material_ universe, we consider as a temporary _illusion_ and nothing else. That alone which is eternal is _real_.

ENQ. At that rate, you and I are also illusions.

THEO. As flitting personalities, to-day one person, to-morrow another—we are. Would you call the sudden flashes of the _Aurora borealis_, the Northern lights, a “reality,” though it is as real as can be while you look at it? Certainly not; it is the cause that produces it, if permanent and eternal, which is the only reality, while the other is but a passing illusion.

ENQ. All this does not explain to me how this illusion called the universe originates; how the conscious _to be_, proceeds to manifest itself from the unconsciousness that _is_.

THEO. It is _unconsciousness_ only to our finite consciousness. Verily may we paraphrase verse v, in the 1st chapter of St. John, and say “and (Absolute) light (which is darkness) shineth in darkness (which is illusionary material light); and the darkness comprehendeth it not.” This absolute light is also absolute and immutable law. Whether by radiation or emanation—we need not quarrel over terms—the universe passes out of its homogeneous subjectivity on to the first plane of manifestation, of which planes there are seven, we are taught. With each plane it becomes more dense and material until it reaches this, our plane, on which the only world approximately known and understood in its physical composition by Science, is the planetary or Solar system—one _sui generis_, we are told.

ENQ. What do you mean by _sui generis_?

THEO. I mean that, though the fundamental law and the universal working of laws of Nature are uniform, still our Solar system (like every other such system in the millions of others in Cosmos) and even our Earth, has its own programme of manifestations differing from the respective programmes of all others. We speak of the inhabitants of other planets and imagine that if they are _men_, _i.e._, thinking entities, they must be as we are. The fancy of poets and painters and sculptors never fails to represent even the angels as a beautiful copy of man—_plus_ wings. We say that all this is an error and a delusion; because, if on this little earth alone one finds such a diversity in its flora, fauna and mankind—from the seaweed to the cedar of Lebanon, from the jelly-fish to the elephant, from the Bushman and negro to the Apollo Belvedere—alter the conditions cosmic and planetary, and there must be as a result quite a different flora, fauna and mankind. The same laws will fashion quite a different set of things and beings even on this our plane, including in it all our planets. How much more different then must be _external_ nature in other Solar systems, and how foolish is it to judge of other _stars_ and worlds and human beings by our own, as physical science does!

ENQ. But what are your data for this assertion?

THEO. What science in general will never accept as proof—the cumulative testimony of an endless series of Seers who have testified to this fact. Their spiritual visions, real explorations by, and through, physical and spiritual senses untrammeled by blind flesh, were systematically checked and compared one with the other, and their nature sifted. All that was not corroborated by unanimous and collective experience was rejected, while that only was recorded as established truth which, in various ages, under different climes, and throughout an untold series of incessant observations, was found to agree and receive constantly further corroboration. The methods used by our scholars and students of the psycho-spiritual sciences do not differ from those of students of the natural and physical sciences, as you may see. Only our fields of research are on two different planes, and our instruments are made by no human hands, for which reason perchance they are only the more reliable. The retorts, accumulators, and microscopes of the chemist and naturalist may get out of order; the telescope and the astronomer’s horological instruments may get spoiled; our recording instruments are beyond the influence of weather or the elements.

ENQ. And therefore you have implicit faith in them?

THEO. Faith is a word not to be found in theosophical dictionaries: we say _knowledge based on observation and experience_. There is this difference, however, that while the observation and experience of physical science lead the Scientists to about as many “working” hypotheses as there are minds to evolve them, our _knowledge_ consents to add to its lore only those facts which have become undeniable, and which are fully and absolutely demonstrated. We have no two beliefs or hypotheses on the same subject.

ENQ. Is it on such data that you came to accept the strange theories we find in _Esoteric Buddhism_?

THEO. Just so. These theories may be slightly incorrect in their minor details, and even faulty in their exposition by lay students; they are _facts_ in nature, nevertheless, and come nearer the truth than any scientific hypothesis.

ON THE SEPTENARY CONSTITUTION OF OUR PLANET.

ENQ. I understand that you describe our earth as forming part of a chain of earths?

THEO. We do. But the other six “earths” or globes, are not on the same plane of objectivity as our earth is; therefore we cannot see them.

ENQ. Is that on account of the great distance?

THEO. Not at all, for we see with our naked eye planets and even stars at immeasurably greater distances; but it is owing to those six globes being outside our physical means of perception, or plane of being. It is not only that their material density, weight, or fabric are entirely different from those of our earth and the other known planets; but they are (to us) on an entirely different _layer_ of space, so to speak; a layer not to be perceived or felt by our physical senses. And when I say “layer,” please do not allow your fancy to suggest to you layers like strata or beds laid one over the other, for this would only lead to another absurd misconception. What I mean by “layer” is that plane of infinite space which by its nature cannot fall under our ordinary waking perceptions, whether mental or physical; but which exists in nature outside of our normal mentality or consciousness, outside of our three dimensional space, and outside of our division of time. Each of the seven fundamental planes (or layers) in space—of course as a whole, as the pure space of Locke’s definition, not as our finite space—has its own objectivity and subjectivity, its own space and time, its own consciousness and set of senses. But all this will be hardly comprehensible to one trained in the modern ways of thought.

ENQ. What do you mean by a different set of senses? Is there anything on our human plane that you could bring as an illustration of what you say, just to give a clearer idea of what you may mean by this variety of senses, spaces, and respective perceptions?

THEO. None; except, perhaps, that which for Science would be rather a handy peg on which to hang a counter-argument. We have a different set of senses in dream-life, have we not? We feel, talk, hear, see, taste and function in general on a different plane; the change of state of our consciousness being evidenced by the fact that a series of acts and events embracing years, as we think, pass ideally through our mind in one instant. Well, that extreme rapidity of our mental operations in dreams, and the perfect naturalness, for the time being, of all the other functions, show us that we are on quite another plane. Our philosophy teaches us that, as there are seven fundamental forces in nature, and seven planes of being, so there are seven states of consciousness in which man can live, think, remember and have his being. To enumerate these here is impossible, and for this one has to turn to the study of Eastern metaphysics. But in these two states—the waking and the dreaming—every ordinary mortal, from a learned philosopher down to a poor untutored savage, has a good proof that such states differ.

ENQ. You do not accept, then, the well-known explanations of biology and physiology to account for the dream state?

THEO. We do not. We reject even the hypotheses of your psychologists, preferring the teachings of Eastern Wisdom. Believing in seven planes of Kosmic being and states of Consciousness, with regard to the Universe or the Macrocosm, we stop at the fourth plane, finding it impossible to go with any degree of certainty beyond. But with respect to the Microcosm, or man, we speculate freely on his seven states and principles.

ENQ. How do you explain these?

THEO. We find, first of all, two distinct beings in man; the spiritual and the physical, the man who thinks, and the man who records as much of these thoughts as he is able to assimilate. Therefore we divide him into two distinct natures; the upper or the spiritual being, composed of three “principles” or _aspects_; and the lower or the physical quaternary, composed of _four_—in all _seven_.

THE SEPTENARY NATURE OF MAN.

ENQ. Is it what we call Spirit and Soul, and the man of flesh?

THEO. It is not. That is the old Platonic division. Plato was an Initiate, and therefore could not go into forbidden details; but he who is acquainted with the archaic doctrine finds the seven in Plato’s various combinations of Soul and Spirit. He regarded man as constituted of two parts—one eternal, formed of the same essence as the Absoluteness, the other mortal and corruptible, deriving its constituent parts from the _minor_ “created” Gods. Man is composed, he shows, of (1) A mortal body, (2) An immortal principle, and (3) A “separate mortal kind of Soul.” It is that which we respectively call the physical man, the Spiritual Soul or Spirit, and the animal Soul (the _Nous_ and _psuche_). This is the division adopted by Paul, another Initiate, who maintains that there is a psychical body which is sown in the corruptible (astral soul or body), and a _spiritual_ body that is raised in incorruptible substance. Even James (iii. 15) corroborates the same by saying that the “wisdom” (of our lower soul) descendeth not from the above, but is terrestrial (“psychical,” “demoniacal,” _vide_ Greek text); while the other is heavenly wisdom. Now so plain is it that Plato and even Pythagoras, while speaking but of three “principles,” give them seven separate functions, in their various combinations, that if we contrast our teachings this will become quite plain. Let us take a cursory view of these seven aspects by drawing two tables.

THEOSOPHICAL DIVISION.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- { SANSCRIT TERMS. | EXOTERIC MEANING.| EXPLANATORY. {------------------------------------------------------------------ L { | | o {(_a_) Rupa, or |(_a_) Physical |(_a_) Is the vehicle of w { Sthula-Sarira. | body. | all the other e { | | “principles” during r { | | life. {(_b_) Pranâ. |(_b_) Life, or |(_b_) Necessary only to { | Vital principle.| _a_, _c_, _d_, and Q { | | the functions of the u { | | lower _Manas_, which a { | | embrace all those t { | | limited to the e { | | (_physical_) brain. r {(_c_) Linga Sharira.|(_c_) Astral Body.|(_c_) The _Double_, the n { | | phantom body. a {(_d_) Kama rupa. |(_d_) The seat of |(_d_) This is the centre r { | animal desires| of the animal man, y { | and passions. | wherelies the line . { | | of demarcation which { | | separates the mortal { | | man from the { | | immortal entity. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------- { | | { SANSCRIT TERMS. | EXOTERIC MEANING. | EXPLANATORY. { | | T {------------------------------------------------------------------- H {(_e_) _Manas_—a |(_e_) Mind, Intelligence:|(_e_) The future state E { dual principle| which is the higher | and the Karmic { in its | human mind, whose | destiny of man U { functions. | light, or radiation, | depend on whether P { | links the MONAD, for | Manas gravitates P { | the lifetime, to the | more downward to E { | mortal man. | Kama rupa, the R { | | seat of the animal { | | passions, or I { | | upwards to_Buddhi_, M { | | Spiritual _Ego_. In P { | | the latter case, E { | | the higher R { | | consciousness of I { | | the individual S { | | Spiritual H { | | aspirations of A { | | _mind_ (Manas), B { | | assimilating L { | | Buddhi, are E { | | absorbed by it { | | and form the _Ego_, T { | | which goes into R { | | Devachanic bliss.[19] I {(_f_) Buddhi. |(_f_) The Spiritual |(_f_) The vehicle of A { | Soul. | pure universal D { | | spirit. . {(_g_) Atma. |(_g_) Spirit. |(_g_) One with the { | | Absolute, as its { | | radiation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now what does Plato teach? He speaks of the _interior_ man as constituted of two parts—one immutable and always the same, formed of the same _substance_ as Deity, and the other mortal and corruptible. These “two parts” are found in our upper _Triad_, and the lower _Quaternary_ (_vide_ Table). He explains that when the Soul, _psuche_, “allies herself to the Nous (divine spirit or substance[20]), she does everything aright and felicitously”; but the case is otherwise when she attaches herself to _Anoia_, (folly, or the irrational animal Soul). Here, then, we have _Manas_ (or the Soul in general) in its two aspects: when attaching itself to _Anoia_ (our _Kama rupa_, or the “Animal Soul” in “Esoteric Buddhism,”) it runs towards entire annihilation, as far as the personal Ego is concerned; when allying itself to the _Nous_ (Atma-Buddhi) it merges into the immortal, imperishable Ego, and then its spiritual consciousness of the personal that _was_, becomes immortal.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOUL AND SPIRIT.

ENQ. Do you really teach, as you are accused of doing by some Spiritualists and French Spiritists, the annihilation of every personality?

THEO. We do not. But as this question of the duality—the _individuality_ of the Divine Ego, and the _personality_ of the human animal—involves that of the possibility of the real immortal Ego appearing in _Séance rooms_ as a “materialised spirit,” which we deny as already explained, our opponents have started the nonsensical charge.

ENQ. You have just spoken of _psuche_ running towards its entire annihilation if it attaches itself to _Anoia_. What did Plato, and do you mean by this?

THEO. The _entire_ annihilation of the _personal_ consciousness, as an exceptional and rare case, I think. The general and almost invariable rule is the merging of the personal into the individual or immortal consciousness of the Ego, a transformation or a divine transfiguration, and the entire annihilation only of the lower _quaternary_. Would you expect the man of flesh, or the _temporary personality_, his shadow, the “astral,” his animal instincts and even physical life, to survive with the “spiritual Ego” and become sempiternal? Naturally all this ceases to exist, either at, or soon after corporeal death. It becomes in time entirely disintegrated and disappears from view, being annihilated as a whole.

ENQ. Then you also reject _resurrection in the flesh_?

THEO. Most decidedly we do! Why should we, who believe in the archaic esoteric philosophy of the Ancients, accept the unphilosophical speculations of the later Christian theology, borrowed from the Egyptian and Greek exoteric Systems of the Gnostics?

ENQ. The Egyptians revered Nature-Spirits, and deified even onions: your Hindus are _idolaters_, to this day; the Zoroastrians worshipped, and do still worship, the Sun; and the best Greek philosophers were either dreamers or materialists—witness Plato and Democritus. How can you compare?

THEO. It may be so in your modern Christian and even Scientific catechism; it is not so for unbiased minds. The Egyptians revered the “One-Only-One,” as _Nout_; and it is from this word that Anaxagoras got his denomination _Nous_, or as he calls it, Νους αυτοχρατης, “the Mind or Spirit Self-Potent,” the αρχητης χινηδεως, the leading motor, or _primum-mobile_ of all. With him the _Nous_ was God, and the _logos_ was man, his emanation. The _Nous_ is the spirit (whether in Kosmos or in man), and the _logos_, whether Universe or astral body, the emanation of the former, the physical body being merely the animal. Our external powers perceive _phenomena_; our _Nous_ alone is able to recognise their _noumena_. It is the logos alone, or the _noumenon_, that survives, because it is immortal in its very nature and essence, and the _logos_ in man is the Eternal Ego, that which reincarnates and lasts for ever. But how can the evanescent or external shadow, the temporary clothing of that divine Emanation which returns to the source whence it proceeded, be that _which is raised in incorruptibility_?

ENQ. Still you can hardly escape the charge of having invented a new division of man’s spiritual and psychic constituents; for no philosopher speaks of them, though you believe that Plato does.

THEO. And I support the view. Besides Plato, there is Pythagoras, who also followed the same idea.[21] He described the _Soul_ as a self-moving Unit (_monad_) composed of three elements, the _Nous_ (Spirit), the _phren_ (mind), and the _thumos_ (life, breath or the _Nephesh_ of the Kabalists) which three correspond to our “Atma-Buddhi,” (higher Spirit-Soul), to _Manas_ (The EGO), and to _Kama-rupa_ in conjunction with the _lower_ reflection of Manas. That which the Ancient Greek philosophers termed _Soul_, in general, we call Spirit, or Spiritual _Soul_, _Buddhi_, as the vehicle of _Atma_ (the _Agathon_, or Plato’s Supreme Deity). The fact that Pythagoras and others state that _phren_ and _thumos_ are shared by us with the brutes, proves that in this case the _lower_ Manasic reflection (instinct) and _Kama-rupa_ (animal living passions) are meant. And as Socrates and Plato accepted the clue and followed it, if to these five, namely, _Agathon_ (Deity or Atma), _Psuche_ (Soul in its collective sense), _Nous_ (Spirit or Mind), _Phren_ (physical mind), and _Thumos_ (Kama-rupa or passions) we add the _eidolon_ of the Mysteries, the shadowy _form_ or the human double, and the _physical body_, it will be easy to demonstrate that the ideas of both Pythagoras and Plato were identical with ours. Even the Egyptians held to the Septenary division. In its exit, they taught, the Soul (EGO) had to pass through its seven chambers, or principles, those it left behind, and those it took along with itself. The only difference is that, ever bearing in mind the penalty of revealing Mystery-doctrines, which was _death_, they gave out the teaching in a broad outline, while we elaborate it and explain it in its details. But though we do give out to the world as much as is lawful, even in our doctrine more than one important detail is withheld, which those who study the esoteric philosophy and are pledged to silence, _are alone entitled to know_.

THE GREEK TEACHINGS.

ENQ. We have magnificent Greek and Latin, Sanskrit and Hebrew scholars. How is it that we find nothing in their translations that would afford us a clue to what you say?

THEO. Because your translators, their great learning notwithstanding, have made of the philosophers, the Greeks especially, _misty_ instead of mystic writers. Take as an instance Plutarch, and read what he says of “the principles” of man. That which he describes was accepted literally and attributed to metaphysical superstition and ignorance. Let me give you an illustration in point: “Man,” says Plutarch, “is compound; and they are _mistaken who think him to be compounded of two parts only_. For they imagine that the understanding (brain intellect) is a part of the soul (the upper Triad), but they err in this no less than those who make the soul to be a part of the body, _i.e._, those who make of the _Triad_ part of the corruptible mortal _quaternary_. For the understanding (nous) as far exceeds the soul, as the soul is better and diviner than the body. Now this composition of the soul (ψυχη) with the understanding (νοῦς) makes reason; and with the body (or thumos, the animal soul) passion; of which the one is the beginning or principle of pleasure and pain, and the other of virtue and vice. Of these three parts conjoined and compacted together, the earth has given the body, the moon the soul, and the sun the understanding to the generation of man.”

This last sentence is purely allegorical, and will be comprehended only by those who are versed in the esoteric science of correspondences and know which planet is _related to every principle_. Plutarch divides the latter into three groups, and makes of the body a compound of physical frame, astral shadow, and breath, or the triple lower part, which “from earth was taken and to earth returns”; of the middle principle and the instinctual soul, the second part, derived _from_ and _through_ and ever influenced by the moon[22]; and only of the higher part or the _Spiritual Soul_, with the Atmic and Manasic elements in it does he make a direct emanation of the Sun, who stands here for _Agathon_ the Supreme Deity. This is proven by what he says further as follows:

“Now of the deaths we die, the one makes man two of three and the other one of (out of) two. The former is in the region and jurisdiction of Demeter, whence the name given to the Mysteries, τελειν, resembled that given to death, τελευταν. The Athenians also heretofore called the deceased sacred to Demeter. As for the other death, it is in the moon or region of Persephone.”