Re: Re Evolution
Sep 11, 1995 05:16 PM
by Eldon B. Tucker
>[writing to Jerry:]
I have a number of comments that may help answer your questions to Jerry S.
>I am not aware that HPB teaches anything other than THE monad, meaning
>usually Atma-buddhi as the imperishable individuality throughout the
>manvantara. That monad may be experiencing embodied life through the vehicle
>of a human, an animal, a vegetable, etc. but it is the SAME monad throughout.
>They are not different monads, just experiencing different kinds of
Each particular being is the manifestation of an individual Monad. The
Monad sends out a ray of itself into manifestation. That ray of consciousness
evolves over time through the various Kingdoms of nature. When evolving
through the Animal Kingdom, we'd call it an Animal Monad; when in the
Human Kingdom, we'd call it the Human Monad. The Monad per se, though, does
not enter manifestation. It exists in its pure state, above and apart from
things, overlooking existence but only participating through that ray or
portion of itself that it projects onto the plane of manifesttion.
>I believe the teachings regarding different "human monads" "animal monads"
>etc. are from later, secondary sources, including Besant and Leadbeater, and
>I do not defend them. They may contradict Buddhist teachings if in fact
>they teach the permanence of anything other than consciousness, but it is not
>clear exactly what "human monad" might mean except in HPB's definition.
Purucker uses the terms "Divine Monad", "Spiritual Monad," "Human Monad,"
etc. to refer to various parts of the human constitution. In one sense, he
is referring to the componsite nature of our being, while fully embodied.
We have different Monads coming together to participate in this composite
being. In another sense, we have a reference to our own innate consciousness
at the corresponding levels or scales of being. The Divine Monad correlates
to our parent star and to a scale of being that perhaps encompasses the
galaxy. The Spiritual Monad refers to the Dhyani-Chohanic level of experience,
and to a scale of being that encompasses our universal solar system. And
the Human Monad refers to the ordinarly human level of experience, as a
being on a globe of a planetary chain. At each such scale of being, we have
the *latent* capability of experiencing life. And we also have a being
acting in something of a godfather or parent role to us, participating in
our constitution in a sense.
Consider the Manasaputra. We have both another being or Monad "in" our
constitution acting as a Higher Self or mentor. And at the same time we
have the capability of being a Manasaputra one day ourselves. At that point,
we don't need that "mentor" role from that other Monad, which will also have
progressed upward itself.
While Purucker uses terms like "Spiritual Monad" or "Higher Human Monad"
to refer to the different centers of consciousness in our constitution,
Blavatsky might use "soul," like "Spiritual Soul" for Buddhi. The same
part of our constitution is being referred to. It's just that Purucker
is further refining the description of what makes up each center of
consciousness. Instead of just "soul's", we have "Monads," "Egos," and
"Souls," where a Monad indicates that the center of consciousness is a
being in its own right, Ego refers to the currently-evolved ray of
consciousness from that Monad, and Soul refers to the current form or
embodiment of that Ego.
Does this involve a different use of "Monad" that Blavatsky's? Not
exactly. Each center of consciousness or being participating in our
constitution is a being in its own right, and the evolved-forth ray
of consciousness of a distinct Monad. In that sense, the use of the
term is the same. It's just that when we consider the composite nature
of our embodied being, when the Shandhas (and the Monads) come together
as we come into birth, that we talk of multiple Monads making up man.
But this is not saying that *we* are composed of multiple Monads.
Our constitution is so componsed, during life, but *we* are the
Human Monad in that constitution. The other Monads are related to us
in a "family" way that is extremely close, but there is no attempt
to say tht *we* are a collection of Monads.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application