Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00594)

Coherence:

>>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.

It's part of the same topic, how Animal Monads get into the Human
Kingdom.

>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.

If you find the word "inconsistencies" suitable to your outlook, you
can use it. I would not use the term. I find Purucker providing more
detailed descriptions of teachings that Blavatsky only hinted at. If
you want to limit yourself to the subset of Theosophy that Blavatsky
stated in definite terms, that's your personal choice.

>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.

The terms are used in a number of ways in theosophical literature.
A particular being could be called a God, Monad, or Atom depending
upon which stream of evolution it was associated. Regardless of the
stature of the being, it evolves forth a center of self-consciousness
(Ego) and outer vehicle (Soul). This is the generalized case, for
any particular being.

Taking us as humans, as composite beings during incarnation, we
are an aggregate of associated Monads, in much the same way as the
Globes of a Chain are an aggregate. We, particuarly, are the lower
Human Monads. Looking upwards in our constitution, we have a
Manasaputra. The term "Manasaputra" can both refer to an higher
intelligence that informs and inspires us (a Higher Monad in our
constitution or in association with us during life) and it can
refer to our *innate* Manasaputra, our capability of being one
ourselves one day.

>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".

HPB speaks of one or both teachings without often clearly distinguishing
them. Purucker clearly defines the two *as different*. The centers of
consciousness and principles are difference in the same sense as the
globes and planes are.

>If I insert Principle where you use Monad I get a clearer
>picture, and even the above makes a little more sense to me.

I would say that the distinction is important. When it is not made,
it would retreat to ideas you'd find more familiar.

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

In one sense we can speak of each of the seven principles as the
vehicle of the next higher one. But I'd have to say that the
principles are the basic ingredients of consciousness and their
progressive unfoldment shows the gradual coming into being of
an entity. Only the Sthula-Sharira is a literal form or body,
on whatever plane it may exist.

>The reincarnating Ego is Atma/Buddhi/Manas.

Yes, the sense of Ego arises with Manas. Before Manas, there is
no notion of a separate self with personal attributes.

>How do these relate to what Purucker teaches?

He teaches the basic concepts along the traditional lines.
Purucker also advances, I'd say, the philosophy with clear
and useful teachings that Blavatsky only hinted at.
(One good example of this is the idea of Inner Rounds and
Outer Rounds, of which there is only a hint in "The Mahatma
Letters", but on which Purucker has expounded upon with
some quite profound teachings.)

>The remainder of your overly long post is condescending
>and thinly veils your irritation.

I'm not sure what would be "overly long". Perhaps I wrote too
much for you to try to reply to? I'm not irritated at what you
might say. I can infer from what you write and your recommendation
that a student read Blavatsky, Judge, and Crosbie, that you're
from the ULT variant of Theosophy. When I intepret what you say
in terms of the ULT party line I find it fairly consistent.

Regarding "condescending", I'm not sure what I said that would
sound that way, but it certainly was not my intent. I'm expressing
my understanding of Theosophy. What I'm saying is clear and makes
sense to me. You may find it confusing because of a lack of study
on your part of certain authors. I'd suggest that there's quite a
deep understanding of Theosophy to be found in Purucker's books.

There is an unfortunate tendency to sectarianism in the theosophical
groups -- Adyar, Point Loma, and ULT -- where each recognizes their
own "esoteric succession" and encourages its members to only read
approved authors. Adyar considers Leadbeater special; Point Loma
considers Purucker special; and ULT considers Crosbie special. (Even
within theosophical sects, there can be infighting, like where
the Los Angeles and New York ULT lodges might ban writings of R.
Iyer, a prominent ULT figure in the Santa Barbara lodge.) I'd
say that we should lay aside all the rival claims and openly read
the different books and evaluate them for their respective merits
and shortcomings.

>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.

When skillfully crafting an article for publication, this approach
can be highly useful. For general discussion, though, we're working
with our personal understandings, and it may take many discussions
for our understandings to grow and evolve. I'd use a different
analogy, and say that we are working off the rough edges to our
ideas using "sandpaper".

>You also should not brush over the "no inconsistency" issue so
>quickly.

Sometimes an "inconsistency" is in the mind of the beholder. If you
believe in advance that someone is a later writer with possibly
deviate ideas, you're inclined to find inconsistencies even when
they're not there. If I believe in advance that someone is a bona
fide spokesman for the Masters quite capable of speaking new
theosophical teachings, I'm inclined to not find inconsistencies.
Either approach is biased, since it's taking the stand of a
trial lawyer looking only for those facts that will support a
predetermined case that one wants to make.

When we do find an inconsistency, we may be inclined to take
different methods of resolving them. You might judge Purucker
wrong if you feel you've caught him in one. I would weigh and
balance Purucker against Blavatsky and see which of the two
equally-qualified teachers was less clear, or possibly mistaken.
(Blavatsky and Purucker are both human, and subject to human
error at times, and may have made mistakes.)

>I do appreciate you time and effort.

We're all working for the same goal, even when our personally-adopted
traditions are at times in apparent conflict. Anything that we do
will better humanity in the long run, if we give it our best effort.

I appreciate your participation in 'theos-l' too. You might
review your writing style, though, since it seems at times to invite
conflict. When you disagree with someone, it's much better to offer
alternate ideas or give your own understanding as such -- much better
than to tell them that they are "confused". And when you reply to
a statement by saying 'this is not what Blavatsky would say' you
are making an appeal to authority rather than to reason. When you
do that, you're passing up an excellent opportunity to do a
theosophical practice of giving fresh, original, immediate expression
to the grand philosophy.

We're all here to grow and learn. We have an opportunity to experiment
with new ideas and move beyond the party lines of our respective
groups.

-- Eldon