[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
absent from even the tiniest geometrical or mathematical point of the
universe of matter or substance, it ought not to be called, in truth, a
"human" principle at all. Rather, and at best, it is in Metaphysics, that
point in space which the human Monad and its vehicle man occupy for the
period of every life. Now that point is as imaginary as man himself, and in
reality is an illusion, a Maya ; but then for ourselves, as for other
personal Egos, we are a reality during that fit of illusion called life, and
we have to take ourselves into account, in our own fancy at any rate, if no
one else does. To make it more conceivable to the human intellect, when
first attempting the study of Occultism, and to solve the a-b-c of the
mystery of man, Occultism calls this seventh principle the synthesis of the
sixth, and gives it for vehicle the Spiritual Soul, Buddhi. Now the latter
conceals a mystery, which is never given to any one, with the exception of
irrevocably pledged Chelas, or those, at any rate, who can be safely
trusted. Of course, there would be less confusion, could it only be told;
but, as this is directly concerned with the power of projecting one's double
consciously and at will, and as this gift, like the "ring of Gyges," would
prove very fatal to man at large and to the possessor of that faculty in
particular, it is carefully guarded. But let us proceed with the principles.
This divine soul, or Buddhi, then, is the vehicle of the Spirit. In
conjunction, these two are one, impersonal and without any attributes (on
this plane, of course), and make two spiritual principles. If we pass onto
the Human Soul, Manas or mens, everyone will agree that the intelligence of
man is dual to say the least: e.g., the high-minded man can hardly become
low-minded; the very intellectual and spiritual-minded man is separated by
an abyss from the obtuse, dull, and material, if not animal-minded man.
Q. But why should not man be represented by two principles or two aspects,
rather?
A. Every man has these two principles in him, one more active than the
other, and in rare cases, one of these is entirely stunted in its growth, so
to say, or paralysed by the strength and predominance of the other aspect,
in whatever direction. These, then, are what we call the two principles or
aspects of Manas, the higher and the lower; the former, the higher Manas, or
the thinking, conscious Ego gravitating toward the spiritual Soul (Buddhi);
and the latter, or its instinctual principle, attracted to Kama, the seat of
animal desires and passions in man. Thus, we have four principles justified;
the last three being (1) the "Double," which we have agreed to call Protean,
or Plastic Soul; the vehicle of (2) the life principle; and (3) the physical
body. Of course no physiologist or biologist will accept these principles,
nor can he make head or tail of them. And this is why, perhaps, none of them
understand to this day either the functions of the spleen, the physical
vehicle of the Protean Double, or those of a certain organ on the right side
of man, the seat of the above-mentioned desires, nor yet does he know
anything of the pineal gland, which he describes as a horny gland with a
little sand in it, which gland is in truth the very seat of the highest and
divinest consciousness in man, his omniscient, spiritual and all-embracing
mind. And this shows to you still more plainly that we have neither invented
these seven principles, nor are they new in the world of philosophy, as we
can easily prove.
Q. But what is it that reincarnates, in your belief?
A. The Spiritual thinking Ego, the permanent principle in man, or that which
is the seat of Manas. It is not Atma, or even Atma-Buddhi, regarded as the
dual Monad, which is the individual, or divine man, but Manas; for Atma is
the Universal All, and becomes the Higher-Self of man only in conjunction
with Buddhi, its vehicle, which links it to the individuality (or divine
Page 58
The Key To Theosophy - HP Blavatsky.txt
man). For it is the Buddhi-Manas which is called the Causal body, (the
United fifth and sixth Principles) and which is Consciousness, that connects
it with every personality it inhabits on earth. Therefore, Soul being a
generic term, there are in men three aspects of Soul-the terrestrial, or
animal; the Human Soul; and the Spiritual Soul; these, strictly speaking,
are one Soul in its three aspects. Now of the first aspect, nothing remains
after death; of the second (nous or Manas) only its divine essence if left
unsoiled survives, while the third in addition to being immortal becomes
consciously divine, by the assimilation of the higher Manas. But to make it
clear, we have to say a few words first of all about Reincarnation.
Q. You will do well, as it is against this doctrine that your enemies fight
the most ferociously.
A. You mean the Spiritualists? I know; and many are the absurd objections
laboriously spun by them over the pages of Light. So obtuse and malicious
are some of them, that they will stop at nothing. One of them found recently
a contradiction, which he gravely discusses in a letter to that journal, in
two statements picked out of Mr. Sinnett's lectures. He discovers that grave
contradiction in these two sentences: "Premature returns to earth-life in
the cases when they occur may be due to Karmic complication & "; and "there
is no accident in the supreme act of divine justice guiding evolution." So
profound a thinker would surely see a contradiction of the law of
gravitation if a man stretched out his hand to stop a falling stone from
crushing the head of a child!
On Reincarnation or Rebirth
What is Memory According to Theosophical Teaching?
Q. The most difficult thing for you to do, will be to explain and give
reasonable grounds for such a belief. No Theosophist has ever yet succeeded
in bringing forward a single valid proof to shake my skepticism. First of
all, you have against this theory of reincarnation, the fact that no single
man has yet been found to remember that he has lived, least of all who he
was, during his previous life.
A. Your argument, I see, tends to the same old objection; the loss of memory
in each of us of our previous incarnation. You think it invalidates our
doctrine? My answer is that it does not, and that at any rate such an
objection cannot be final.
Q. I would like to hear your arguments.
A. They are short and few. Yet when you take into consideration (a) the
utter inability of the best modern psychologists to explain to the world the
nature of mind; and (b) their complete ignorance of its potentialities, and
higher states, you have to admit that this objection is based on an a priori
conclusion drawn from prima facie and circumstantial evidence more than
anything else. Now what is "memory" in your conception, pray?
Q. That which is generally accepted: the faculty in our mind of remembering
and of retaining the knowledge of previous thoughts, deeds, and events.
A. Please add to it that there is a great difference between the three
accepted forms of memory. Besides memory in general you have Remembrance,
Recollection, and Reminiscence, have you not? Have you ever thought over the
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
