Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00612)

In a message dated 95-10-31 10:53:02 EST, you write:

>>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.
>
I cannot find your offering of the definition of Monad and Ego in this. In
refering to the chain of Globes analogy, this seems to fit the definition of
Principles more so than Monads. I also understand "Manasaputra" (literally
given to us as "Sons of Universal Mind") to be Manas. Is this how you are
using the term?

>>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.

In your definition then, are Monads then the "forms" as "globe" may be the
form while "plane" may be the "center of consciousness"?

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

This is condescending. The implication is that if one can't play in the Big
Leagues, i.e. with you, then one should "retreat" to the Minors or never
venture forth to new territory. Here you are missing an opportunity to teach
and help. I will certainly review my writing style if you will also review
yours.

>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.

I am not able to provide a reference, but remember reading that as
consciousness develops or functions on each plane, that plane becomes
objective, and hence we would have a "body" or "form" and that plane would
seem to be a "place". By "entity" in your above passage, are you refering to
your definition of Monad?

>>How do these relate to what Purucker teaches?

>He teaches the basic concepts along the traditional lines.

This has not been demonstrated, yet.

>For general discussion, though, we're working
>with our personal understandings, and it may take many discussions
>for our understandings to grow and evolve.

This is true, but why not cite specific references as a starting point, so we
can see what each author says about a topic, then work and reason through
our individual understandings. This seems to be a better approach. You
previously asked for an HPB reference, which was provided. Now what does
GdeP say?

> 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

Rush to Judgement. You are not giving us the opportunity to "not find
inconsistencies" in the utterances of "bona fide spokesman for the Masters"

> 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.

I find that HPB provides the Universals and some particulars, the whole of
which requires a great deal of reasoning powers to come to our own
conclusions. Are we not to consider a person who knows a topic an authority?
 The distinction is that we do not rely on it JUST BECAUSE she said so.
 Since you have equated Purucker with HPB there is either the implication
that they are both authorities or neither are. Yes I will turn to one I
perceive to know a topic to be an authority while trying to reason and make
the knowledge my own. A Math teacher is the authority until I have worked
the exercises and solved the problems and possess the knowledge to become my
own authority.

>Sometimes an "inconsistency" is in the mind of the beholder.

Agreed.

< 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.

Since we are not given a specific Purucker reference for comparison, we
cannot make this determination.

This response is now overly long. Many side issues have come into what began
as a fairly specific request to clarify your assertion of the existence of an
animal Monad co-existing with the Monad which has reached the human stage of
evolution. Is it possible for us to return to this, or have the side issues
overcome us? To be determined.