Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00330)

In message <960505105606_106997618@emout07.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com
writes  (tp Kim):

Alan Bain responds.

>One of the things which caught my eye many years ago was H.P.B.'s way of
>wording the well-known Kabalistic saying.  Her version:  "The Breath becomes
>a stone; the stone, a plant; the plant, an animal; the animal, a man; the
>man, a spirit; and the spirit, a god."  (I had previously heard versions
>which left out *Breath* and/or used *angel* for *spirit*.)

It occurs near the beginning of her commentary to Stanza V in Vol. One
of the SD. She does not, alas, give her source.  I only ever came across
it without the reference to breath, but see below.

>Now, this seemed significant to me because H.P.B.'s rendering seemed much
>more in keeping with my own meditative observation of the "sequence of
>differentiated consciousnesses."  It also seems to correspond nicely with the
>"Eastern terminology" I provided Eldon a while back:
>
>>[quoting earlier post] All this [the general problem of one's own theosophy
>not quite matching up with conventional definitions for terminology etc.]
>notwithstanding, here is a little table of correspondences (*Chronological
>Age* [potential egoic delusions of the next Cycle begin at the mid-point of
>the present]; *Cycle*; *Possible Eastern Term* [; Kabalistic Term]):
>
>1-7. . . . .Animating. . . . .*Prana*  [Breath]
>7-14. . . . .Physical. . . . .*Sthula*  [stone]
>14-21. . . . .Desire-Feeling. . . . .*Kama*  [plant]
>21-28. . . . .Desire-Mental. . . . .*Kama-Manas*  [animal]
>28-35. . . . .Mental. . . . .*Manas*  [man]
>35-42. . . . .Spirit-Mental. . . . .*Buddhi-Manas*  [spirit]
>42-49. . . . .Spirit. . . . .*Buddhi*  [god]
>>
>
>Kim, it seems clear to me that the foregoing table looks at things from an
>individual "Psychogenetic" perspective rather than the more macro
>Cosmogenetic or Anthropogenetic.   My question to you is this:  Is H.P.B.'s
>inclusion of *Breath* in the scheme an innovation on her part, or is *Breath*
>(or something equivalent) also present in original Kabalistic or Eastern
>writings that you are aware of?   (I.e., were the other versions I heard
>first simply the result of people passing along the incomplete saying?)

Forty years of Kabalist study suggest that Kabala renders it *without*
the reference to breath - BUT - "God" as "Breath" would be taken as a
*given* in all such expressions of development.  HPB also quotes other
(biblical) references to the divine breath having a generative effect,
though in one place she appears to use the incorrect Hebrew word, while
rendering the correct English translation!

So, yes, the above table makes sense to me, at least.

Hope this is of some value.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html