Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00586)

In a message dated 95-10-30 13:56:14 EST, you write:

>>There is no reference to Animal Monads becoming "Human NATURES" or
>>our lower attributes.

>When we consider individual Monads, this would be correct.<

This is the only point I was attempting to address.

>>When I speak of the Animal Monad in the Human Kingdom, acting as our
>>animal nature, I'm not referring to the mere physical body as a living
>>animal. I'm referring to another Ego, the expression of a different,
>>lower Monad, in our psyche, acting in close relation to us in a
>>cooperative experience of life.>

Now this not only seems to contradict your above admission, but again
reiterates the point my post was trying to clear up, or at least show what
HPB taught. This is not my understanding from the study of the SD or HPB's
other writings. If this is your understanding based on Purucker, then there
do seem to be inconsistencies, and we can leave it at that.

One exercise that may be helpful is to define terms such as Ego and Monad, as
you seem to be using them in ways not familiar to me. As far as I can tell
from a close reading of your post, you use the term "Monad" where HPB would
use the term "Principle". If I insert Principle where you use Monad I get a
clearer picture, and even the above makes a little more sense to me.
 According to HPB,

Monad is Spirit, Atma, a ray of the absolute and its vehicle, the Spiritual
Soul, Buddhi.

The reincarnating Ego is Atma/Buddhi/Manas.

How do these relate to what Purucker teaches?

The remainder of your overly long post is condescending and thinly veils your
irritation. Because as you indicate, these doctrines are difficult, we
should approach topics with a surgeon's knife, skill and patience to achieve
a meaningful comparison and understanding. You also should not brush over
the "no inconsistency" issue so quickly.

I do appreciate you time and effort.