HPB describes sevenfold consciousness/intelligence/spirit ('7 spirits before the throne' :)

high-/deity-spirit; Word
middle-/holy-spirit; oversoul: paramatma/jive
low-/plain-spirit: atma; deo (a more monosyllabic British--Scottish--word)
soul
mind (incl. high/abstract/arupa, middle/egoic/rupa, low/concrete/kama-manas :) spatial--astral (space is 5th dimension)
ghost: temporal (time is 4th dimension)
life (3 dimensions.)

I call the latter 'consciousness,' but there is a consciousness heptad (non-transpersonal psychologists have only a triad, or tetrad if they have any intellectual clarity: )

Deity-conscious (transpersonal psychology term)
Mukti-/Buddha-/Christ-conscious (transpersonal psychology term)
superconscious (transpersonal psychology term)
consciousness (controls/watches mind)
pre-conscious (mind is mainly this, in psychology)
subconscious
unconscious (in psychology typically a synonym for the previous one, except this is the vital/ethereal id--former is emotional.)

Also, consciousness is described by words with the prefix 'in:'

induction (not necessarily as complete/high a form of reason as some of the following, but the cause of the next one in physics)
incandescence (enlightenment; highly spiritual reasoning--noesis)
inspiration (spiritual, by etymology)
intuition (higher reason, philosophically; particularly 'soulful' in esoteric philosophy)
intellect (mental)
instinct (ghostly/emotional)
incarnation (vital/ethereal.)

The reason I started without 'infinity' or 'intelligence' is I reserve those (and others) for kosmik worlds ('planes,' but I am a mathematician) higher than kosmik material-ethereal ('physical,' but that would exclude energy from higher ones ;) the latter defined in the latter heptad. If you do not want to do that, use 'infinity' or 'intelligence' not 'induction,' since it is only part of abductive reasoning. IIRC HPB implied regular-level and kosmik worlds.

What do you think are the differences between these heptads, or spirit, consciousness, intelligence? I am not sure, but I made a list of ideas & things from 1 - 52 (50 being least number of Devanagari--written Sanskrit, 52 being number of Varmala--spoken Sanskrit,) including squares for 1 - 10 (i.e. 2x2, 3x3 ideas to 10x10,) including spirit & intelligence heptads with correspondences to worlds ('planes,') elements (classical, energetic, force,) states of matter using etheric theory, and categories of gnosis & forms (subjects & objects,) or Shakti forces. Does anyone know a neo-Platonic heptad of objects (not just ideal forms?) Plato had 2 subjects-objects pairs, which could be 6 (each pair element individually or together) and named, 7. The lowest objects are elements/images, emotions/images/things, and thoughts/things (maybe also [systems of] forms in mental triad,) but how do you categorize/order ones at soul and above: forms, systems of forms, ideals, ideas? Are each separate or are there 4 combinations of both pairs? Perhaps one says not 'idea forms' but only 'ideal forms,' and on the other hand there may be [un]knowable transcendent ideas closer to monad Agathon, but it is confusing if they are not [ideal] systems of forms. Maybe I should give up objects and list the Shakti forces or consciousness heptad.

David,

The first thing that comes to mind are the seven principles within each human.



For your other questions, you might want to google "Blavatsky" plus the words you are looking for.

HPB describes 7 principles both 'in a human' and 'of the 7 planes'.... What I listed is 3 synonym name lists of consciousness principles in the 7 planes. My question about that was as rhetorical as it was dialectical (they are synonyms is all I know,) but my questions were not so much about that, so I will clarify.

In each world ('plane') we know each principle (subject) involves certain forms, things, or images (objects; forms being only higher in Platonic terminology; lower 'forms' being termed other than 'forms.') Some Sanatana Dharma philosophy has the idea of 'I-that' (subject-object) and states 'Thou art that' (on the level of Platonic forms, and the substance of each consciousness principle.) These are subject-object or whole-parts correspondences for the 3 lower worlds; for higher they are debateable/unknown:

mind - thought[form] (note 'mentation' vs. thinking)
ghost - emotion
life - element

So, what are they on the 4 higher planes of deity-/high-spirit/Word, holy-/middle-spirit/oversoul, spirit, soul? (I took out the section on what I thought they could be because it was quite problematic.)

I guess just as emotional world/'plane' ones are called emotions, soulful & spiritual worlds ones could just use those names, though 'emotional' does not refer to the actual body there (such as the parapsychology term 'ghost') while soulful & spiritual do. Maybe at that level, closer to subject-object unity, it is okay, but that unity might only be at the level of purusha/paramatma (I think so, but am not sure.)

Nick,

On another topic, of Deity-consciousness... I noticed in 'Religions, Philosophies, etc.: What Religion Am I Quiz' you said Theosophy is pantheist. I think Theosophy is compatible with about any form of theism and perhaps weak atheism (I am more theist than atheist.) IIRC, HPB wrote about pantheism, but would it not be more accurate to say Theosophy is panentheist? Without extra philosophical definition, pantheism is similar to animism, but panentheism means nature is within Deity--a clearer way of saying 'Deity is within nature' (pantheism) but that Deity is [still, definitely] greater than the universe. Panentheism allows for other universes.

--Bro David.

David,

I use the word pantheistic to describe the groups of "gods" that created humanity. Christianity also teaches that humanity was created by a group of "gods." Therefore, Christianity is also pantheistic, although most Christians would vehemently deny it.

Let's consider the idea that the word “God” in the Bible was originally “Gods” (plural) and was mis-translated into English. The Book of Genesis says:

“Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” (Genesis 1.26)

When the Bible was translated into English, the word “God” was translated from the word “Elohim”. The word Elohim is plural, not singular:

“The form of the word Elohim, with the ending -im, is plural and masculine....” (www.answers.com/topic/elohim, in the Section titled, “Entymology”.)

Therefore, the sentence from Genesis should read:

“Then the Gods said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” (Genesis 1.26)

... which is what Theosophy teaches. Let’s take another look at the original line from Genesis:

“Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” (underlines added.)

Here, the Bible clearly categorizes the speaker(s) as plural, which again agrees with Theosophical teachings.

The OED definitions are 'pantheism
1. a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2. the worship or tolerance of many gods.
panentheism
the belief or doctrine that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it.'

So, I see how you could describe the Elohim (which I am suprised to hear is masculine, since 'Eloh' is feminine) pantheon pantheist in the sense of polytheism or [kat]henotheism. I think Theosophy also makes statements about the other definition of pan[en]theism.

"the worship or tolerance of many gods"

--> Then Christianity is a pantheistic religion. Even the Bible confirms it.

Yes, of course Judaism and Christianity are pantheistic, however certain 'Christians' reject the old testament, and the new one is not so pantheist. I was aware of the description of Elohim in [I]The Secret Doctrine[/].

Do you think 'consciousness' is a sufficient synonym for 'principles in man?' Maybe some Theosophists, or at least some Dharma philosophers define consciousness part of the spiritual triad, but what are the other denotations? There are too many, but few other (than perhaps the others in the topic name) describe well enough to perhaps be better terms. I referred to '7 spirits.' As for consciousness, it may include action and senses, arguably in all principles, but most other denotations do not include both action or particularly senses. As for intelligence, even what is incarnate has certain order so could be called reasonable. I am not sure Plato would say so... maybe just pan[en]theistically/hylozoistically intelligent.

Also, if the human principles heptad is mainly planes 3 - 5, is there a better way to define mental consciousness than just intellect? I am inclined to say mahat->induction->soul, ->incandescence->highest mind, ->intuition->causal mind. AAB & DK books say intuition is souful (but misuse the word 'inspiration;') Platonic mathematicians might agree if they think it is noesis (archaically maybe psychosis, in the definition of normal psyche processes, than mentation referring to mind/nous.) That would result in these correspondences:

element 1 (if corresponding to plane 1:) inspiration
element 2: inspiration
ether: inspiration
fire: induction
air: incandescence->intuition->intellect
water: instinct
earth: incarnation

My earlier one had 'force' (beyond material elements,) such as electroweak, etc. corresponding to induction, and fire corresponding to inspiration (implying 'fire of spirit,')
but the above table makes different microcosmic sense, though the disadvantage is the so-called mental triad (not necessarily holistic.) I like Adyar's planes chart with triple manifestation, and I think mahat may be induction or inspiration that does involution of itself from inspiration into spirit to incarnation into life. The above table still says it is inspiration, which is maybe all we can say about it, but maybe the other table is better if intelligence processes are not restricted to principles in man. Maybe it depends whether it is divine or personal intelligence. There could be a function from one to the other but it might need list 1 moved exactly into the 2nd's places.

I see Plotinus mentioned more and more as I get deeper into the two volumes of the Esoteric Tradition. It seems that Neo-Platonism is described as the best of the concepts of Plato. So I get the impression that it is higher learning, or, perhaps they are saying refinements made toward accuracy and comprehensiveness. Although Plotinus gets the very highest praise, they make reference to some small corrections to his words being necessary as he wrote in order to be understood by the minds of the Greek philosophers of his day.

When one reaches Nirvana he doesn't seperate himself so much as he is reaching that part of himself that is already there. My first impression of this venue is that the person has identity with a vast scope of experience, with no want for any knowledge, and so it be must a state of awareness, and intellect in a state of bliss. Eventually, the draw back to matter must happen for reasons I am too tired at the moment to contemplate on.

I was looking at the seven tattwas which precede the seven lokas beginning from Nirvana in descending order. It was pretty interesting.

I'll paste paste part of what DaveC wrote on another thread. I've been going over it in order to make it stick. It is pretty involved.

Almost any mathematician, or other not completely empirical scientist who is a good mathematician,

would say intuition is definitely beyond feelings, i.e. instinct (emotional feelings) or incarnation (physical

feelings.) Many such scientists came up with ideas without knowing how (or in the case of Einstein he

just took a nap, though he was not a great mathematician--he had to hire one.) Mathematicians

traditionally, [neo-]Platonically, thought intuition is how ideas come to mind from noeta/intelligibles...

fewer mathematicians are [neo-]Platonic now, though I think it is still the major viewpoint. Empiricism

(higher doxa/a-posteriori--belief) may be used, but noeta/a-priori is also important: synthesis (noesis)

and analysis (dianoia.) The role of Theosophy is also to use noeta/esoterism and show how many

scientists are wrong to limit themselves to doxa/exoterism.

I have read neo-Platonism definitely has refinements towards accuracy and comprehensiveness, but I have not read much neo-Platonism yet. Thomas Taylor translated most Greek Philosophers Theosophists would be interested in; HPB and others read his works. They are public domain, but unfortunately I have not found them on the 'net and the [many] books are very expensive.

...perhaps unless Paranirvana and Mahaparanirvana exist, in which case one may be beyond intellect. Is Devachan beyond intellect and is Devachan Nirvana?

(That sounds Platonic.) I have been writing about this and will continue here. Neo-Theosophy probably has problems with extra principles. Mary Scott wrote it is reasonable and tantric, which could be more esoteric, but who knows? It does not sound like anything I have read so far; HPB's classification makes more sense to me now. I re-read about 'planes' and 'principles' in SD. One diagram I like shows 2 principles/plane, and the lower is the internal vehicle for the main one, except the body is the only lowest material plane one and vehicle for all.




I should have said this rather than the previous post part about spirit:

(I will use Platonic definitions relating consciousness principles to kingdoms of nature. Do you think divine is also in astral and ethereal because of the lower bodies of Buddhas and since those planes have humans and 'ye are gods,' and maybe even plane 7 is divine because of avatars, mulaprakriti, panentheism?)

(I will put macrocosmic names for planes 1st (after kingdoms) but do not recall if there are better ones for 'spiritual.' Since planes 5 - 7 are matter, 1 or 2 of them have force and 1 or 2 [higher] of them [of which 1 may be the same] have energy. Therefore arguably at least planes 3 & 4 are elemental/physical--akasha and fire (whichever,) and according to HPB all are elemental.... That is why plane 7 can be 'geological;' maybe that is too philosophical, and I do not know how to describe it with a 'principle in man.' Also I should have said 2 higher planes may involve induction->incandescence->incineration.)

planes: '7 spirits of god' ('principles in humanity') described
1. spiritual 1: (divine)
2. spiritual 2: (divine)
3. spiritual 3: (divine)
4. spiritual 4: (human-divine) spiritual-soulful
5. material 1: (animal-human) [aerological?] [astral-]mental-emotional
6. material 2: (vegetable-animal-human) [hydrological?] ethereal-vital
7. material 3: (mineral-vegetable-animal-human) [geological?]




This is what I should have said about consciousness:

*like esoteric Buddhism:
God-consciousness: spirit
Mukti-/Buddha-/Christ-consciousness: soul
superconsciousness: mind
consciousness: astral body
subconsciousness: life
pre-consciousness: vital body
unconsciousness: body

*like Vedanta:
God-consciousness: spirit
Mukti-/Buddha-/Christ-consciousness: soul
superconsciousness: "higher mind"
pre-consciousness: "mind" & astral body
subconsciousness: life & vital body
unconsciousness: body

*like Taraka Raja Yoga:
God-consciousness: spirit
Mukti-/Buddha-/Christ-consciousness: soul
pre-consciousness: mind
unconsciousness: life & [vital] body & body

I may still see reasons neo-Theosophists came up with their different classification which may in a way more clearly use the variations above that HPB also used (such as higher manas, lower manas, kama manas, kama rupa as 3 principles, the latter 2 usually synonymous, being on a plane where there should be 2) but if it is not tantric it is probably very speculative.




I should have said something better about intelligences, but I think what I had said in this post was illogical so I took it out... I will think about it and try to write more, or feel free to beat me to it.

Book notes for David C, or anyone else. This site sells all the Taylor translations and yes, they are expensive. But these paperbacks are a great introduction to Platonic thought:

http://openingmind.net/cart/index.php?main...e2fe392d9fbe507

For those with even more moola, The Prometheus Trust has all the Taylor translations and commentaries (33 volumes) in beautiful clothbound.

Interestingly, he neve translated the whole of the Enneads. I think I read he did not feel able to get it right.

Repeating - This site sells all the Taylor translations

http://openingmind.net/cart/index.php?main...e2fe392d9fbe507

I think the Prometheus Trust editions are the ones sold by Opening Mind; I do not think they have paperbacks. It is unfortunate Taylor did not complete Enneads, but nice I can look for a cheaper complete version.

Jeez - does anybody ever click on the links and actually read what is there?

Prometheus Trust does produce paperbacks. Opening Mind sells everything that Prometheus produces, plus stuff by Grimes.

QUOTE
When one reaches Nirvana he doesn't seperate himself so much as he is reaching that part of himself that is already there. My first impression of this venue is that the person has identity with a vast scope of experience, with no want for any knowledge, and so it be must a state of awareness, and intellect in a state of bliss. Eventually, the draw back to matter must happen for reasons I am too tired at the moment to contemplate on.[--mensagitat]


DaveC;
...perhaps unless Paranirvana and Mahaparanirvana exist, in which case one may be beyond intellect. Is Devachan beyond intellect and is Devachan Nirvana?
~~~

I think from what I've read that Devachan has more gradients, variations. Avichi, kama loka and Devachan blend one into the next. Since I keep being reminded of states or conditions rather than actual places, and, we do not necessarily have to be dead to be in these states, it might be sort of an indicator of where one might have his/her start after death. I think we - the intermediate, manas - has to go through these states before the divine soul is finally reached. The sephira can sort of describe what we travel through. I think what we are magnetically drawn to, in the very seemingly endless grades of avichi, kama loka, devachan, are where we maybe go, to slough off certain things before joining our Spiritual Soul to be in Devachanic bliss until the next incarnation.

Maybe the description Devachanic Nirvana is not such a bad phrase. As far as what we go to at the end of a manvantara, I'd say every single monad goes to it. Even the monad of a single atom. Substance is then inert. I would simply wonder how the monad of a single atom would experience Nirvana. Perhaps only to the extent to which it is able.

Describing the consciouness of a Monad which has long ago completed the evolution within humanity, or its lowest manifestation, such as the human body is to our Monads lowest manifestation, seems too difficult because we don't have any clue as to what it is able to perceive. Making the effort to do just that is still a worthwhile endeavor, and there have been Great Masters and Seers which have aided in this effort.

What we put our attention to and the mental/emotional states we tend to be in, are probably the very important things in life. These are just thoughts I express to bounce them around in my own head. I don't expect people who have busy lives to lead, to be reading my long winded barely senseable ramblings. .

As a computer scientist, I do not click (which is not a verb or instruction) links. I do not recall seeing paperbacks of translated Greek Philosopher works the last time I read their site, but this time I see a couple and it says they plan to do the rest in the next 5 years... I hope their US distributor will sell them.

The word 'click' would be defined as a sound. Therefore DaveC, you were instructed to sound on the link. :lol: Only kidding around.

"Another point of importance: the difference between the bliss and wisdom and peace which the nirvani has, and the bliss and peace and comparative rest which the devachani has, is this: the nirvani is completely and wholly Self-conscious, while the devachani is in a state which it is difficult to describe in ordinary words, but which actually is by comparison with the spiritual reality of the Nirvana, a condition of highly felicitous dreaming. The term 'dreaming' is somewhat inaccurate, nor does it convey actually the idea that the devachani's condition is more or less lacking in self-conscious realization of its own felicity, but merely that, however 'spiritual' the devachanic condition is, by comparison with the nirvanic, it is illusory enough." ET vol I ch 18 pg. 585.

David,

You asked,

"Is Devachan beyond intellect and is Devachan Nirvana?"

--> I do not know why, but a lot of people have trouble distinguishing between Devachan and Nirvana. Let me give my interpretation. Devachan (Heaven) is the blissful world we spend time in between incarnations. It is where we rest between the struggles of being in a physical body. Nirvana, on the other hand, is where we 'go' after we have finished our last incarnation, and leave the physical world behind forever.

Nirvana has been described as one of the seven planes of existence, and is at a higher level than the mental plane of existence. I think there are 'people' who are conscious at the mental (Devachanic) plane, and 'people' who are conscious at the nirvanic plane. Since the nirvanic plane is at a higher level than the mental plane, I would say Devachan is 'beyond' intellect.'

So was I. Of course the link may have been making click sounds in memory. Many people might say the geometric relationship between the mouse and coordinates allows clicking over one of those, but I have never completely liked mice/whatever or graphical user interfaces... 'press' sounds better.

Apparently I know not enough about Dharma. I thought nirvana was devachan if it is buddhic and if devas are the highest beings besides Logoi. I wonder what is beyond devachan in Sanatana Dharma.

Did you mean Nirvana is? (though I asked about devachan which I have read described as buddhic.)

The fact that I am engaged in the study of Theosophy immediately informs that I'm lacking in a comprehensive understanding of Theosophy. In studying the two volumes, The Esoteric Tradition with the aid and guidance of a Teacher, I am certainly learning the words of H.P. Blavatsky through the understanding of Purucker. I'm not certain of who it may be, that I might have a conflict with.

This might indicate that I want to learn their thought as well, and from this whole, simply work it all out within my own being. Ultimately, it will be through my own travellings in all the various forms and forces that will direct me to the penultimate.

I'm not certain why I chose that last word. The belief that there is no ending, maybe.

I think that whatever magnetic attractions picked up during life, are not all appropriate for Devichanic condition, and we possibly work our way through the spectrum of avichi, kama loka, to get to Devachan. I think this is applicable thought to what we also engage while still alive.

A part of us is already in the Nirvana. If that is reached while alive, then this is a perfected living human being. Devachan is for the reincarnating Ego before he reincarnates. But I think this Ego doesn't necessarily go directly to this state until certain states or conditions are sloughed off. It explains to me why I don't let certain states linger within me so much anymore, such as perceptions of another person 'doing' something to me. Why do I want to be in such a state? They too often go way beyond any constructive force or form.

Don't mind me, I simply felt like going on like that battery bunny. I can't think of the name, ever-ready? I'm not sure, I like Duracell myself. :huh:

David,

You are correct. I meant to say Nirvana. I would say Nirvana is 'beyond' intellect.

You said,

"I thought nirvana was devachan if it is buddhic...."

--> Here are the seven planes of existence:

Adi
Anupapaduka
Atman
Buddhi
Manas (Intelligence, Mental) (Devachan)
Astral
Physical
(Geoffrey Barborka, Secret Doctrine, Questions and Answers, pp 12-13)
http://www.theos-talk.com/archives/200309/tt00228.html

Nirvana is the plane of existence above Buddhi. Buddhi is the plane of existence above Manas (Devachan, intelligence). Therefore, when a person achieves consciousness on the Nirvanic plane, they are 'beyond thinking in an intellectual way.'

mensagitat,

You said,

"A part of us is already in the Nirvana...."

--> Correct. It is not like Nirvana is over there, and the Physical Plane is over here. The Nirvanic Plane interpenetrates the Physical Plane. The main thing is that we are not yet conscious on the Nirvanic Plane of Existence.

Here is a useful analogy. Take a large jar and fill it with rocks. The large jar is now full, right? No, pour pebbles in between the rocks. The large jar is now full, right? No, pour tiny ball-bearings between the pebbles. The large jar is now full, right? No, pour powdered flour between the ball-bearings. The large jar is now full, right? No, pour water 'between' the powdered flour particles. The large jar is now full, right? No....

We can only perceive objects on the physical plane. Let's compare this to the large jar. Let's say that our eyesight is so bad that, when we look inside the large jar, all we see are the fuzzy outlines of the rocks. (This is an inadequate analogy, but I think you can get the idea.) Today, we can only see the rocks. However, someday, we will sequentially become able to see the pebbles, ball-bearings, powdered flour, and water — someday, we will raise our levels of consciousness to be conscious on the Devachanic, Buddhic, and Nirvanic Planes of Existence. Nirvana is here, but we are unable to perceive it.

I pasted the diagram below to see how close it is to what you presented. I remember that a few of you mention unfamiliarity with talas. Apparently there is the conception that we have substance affiliated with force, even when we are contemplating higher planes. Perhaps it can be illustrated as the current that flows between the anode and cathode. The higher the potential (matter), the more current (fohat) from force (spirit). This is actually a Globe where matter has been perfected. It is also existence within temptation. Strong temptation.

I kind of view the seven Root-Races evolving on seven worlds among the four heavens, seven times Round in the following manner; Talatala, Mahatala, Rasatala, to our current Patala. Patala, Bhur-Loka is this Earth. Bhuvar-Loka, Svar-Loka, Mahar-Loka is among the ascending Arc. The talas are the descending arc toward perfecting matter. Among each Loka, there is its corresponding tala, even if you are looking at a chart that is showing them as being seperate.

One theory I think upon is that of a being on this Bhur-Loka Patala (Earth), Having much more of the Principle (Loka) than the Element (tala). We would not be able to see this person. Or perhaps that is an allegory for our not being able to comprehend this being. If this is an actuality, then only an individual who approaches a relative proximity to this exalted being, would be able to pass on knowlege from this being to others.


1. Adi-tattwa -- proceeding from First Logos

2. Anupapadaka-tattwa " " Second Logos

3. Akasa-tattwa " " Third Logos

4. Vayu-tattwa

5. Taijasa-tattwa

6. Apas-tattwa

7. Prithivi-tattwa

1. Satya-loka --- 1. Atala
2. Tapar-loka -- 2. Vitala
3. Janar-loka --- 3. Sutala
4. Mahar-loka -- 4. Talatala
5. Swar-loka ---- 5. Mahatala
6. Bhuvar-loka -- 6. Rasatala
7. Bhur-loka ----- 7. Patala

Now I will get to an in-depth topic mensagitat may have been expecting I post on. I will assume you know--or ask you to read--or later post the SD p 157 chart.

What I would like to do is sort it out in Greek terms (the English is easy.)

The Taraka Raja Yoga categorization--triad--is in Plato:

'rational soul' logistikon; logos
'emotional soul;' thymikon; thumos
'appetitive soul;' epithymikon; eros

A text at Prometheus Trust called Scholia on Eros also lists: phantastikon, pneuma, and it seems after pneuma is phantastikon, though it also sounds like 'phantasma' (one of the shariras or pranas.) That would be like the esoteric Buddhist classification, or one before it. In fact the following seems to be the case in classifications of 'principles in man'

There is Classical monism and dualism, and...
Plato has 3...
Taraka Raja Yoga has 4...
another Greek one has 5...
Vedanta has 6...
esoteric Buddhism has 7.

Mainly I am still wondering how to use the terms 'augoeides,' 'thumoeides, 'epithumia, etc., and others JM Pryse and Mineda McCleave explan are encoded into
the book of Revelation: terms which I have memorized and mentioned the truly relevant, useful ones here. Any ideas on how to use the latter 3 with the 7 Greek equivalents of the esoteric Buddhist terms?

The Greek equivalents to esoteric Buddhism:

reason; logos (a principle not in the glossaries, but conventionally must be here of course)
spirit; pneuma
mind; nous
ghost; phren
ghost; thymos
life; bios (may be switched with the next; I forgot which is which)
life; phantasma
body; corpus (not a principle)

I guess I would like to duplicate the p 167 chart in Greek and use those 3 other terms I mentioned but did not classify--Hermetic terms or whatever they are.

I want to digress right off the bat. Among the three heavens above us are devis approaching our current evolutionary state, and conversely, among the three heavens above us are devis who have already completed the perfection of matter that we have done, and are on higher evolutionary states of being. I suppose I should say for anyone unfamiliar with devi, I think god or angel are equivalents. In fact, I think god began as a title addressing another man, just as was the word lord.

I think Augoeides can be equated with the Nous.

Thumoeides would be the animal or passional soul.

Epithumetikon is the appetitive soul. Thumoeides and epithumetikon are divisions of Kama-Manas.

Although I do not disagree with the below chart, I'm a bit thrown off because I see Augoeides as Buddhi-Atman. I suspect the perceived ambiguity -I don't want to say contradiction- may lead to something along the lines that Buddhi, being Soul for Atman, nevertheless provides same for manas, in that permeation is the rule subordinating any claims of clearly marked lines of demarcation. All these names placed upon charts in hierarchical order, must be conceived as inextricably intertwined, interlinked, interconnected, interwoven, intermixed, interpermeated.

1. Pneuma ------------------ Atman
2. Nous --------------------- Buddhi-manas
3. Phren -------------------- Higher Manas
4. Thumos ------------------ Kama-manas
5. Bios ---------------------- Prana
6. Phantasma or Phasma - Linga-sarira
7. Soma --------------------- Sthula-sarira

Augoeides [from Greek auge bright light, radiance + eidos form, shape] Bulwer-Lytton in Zanoni adopted the term from Marcus Aurelius (who says that the sphere of the soul is augoeides), using it to denote the radiant spiritual-divine human soul-ego. In Isis Unveiled it denotes the spiritual monad, atma-buddhi, and is collated with the Persian ferouer or feruer, the Platonic nous, etc. In a high degree of initiation the initiant comes face to face with this radiant presence, the luminous radiation streaming from the divine ego at the heart of the monad. When the Augoeides touches with its rays the inferior monads in the human constitution and awakens them to activity, these then becomes the various lower egos or manifested children of the divine ego.


Thumoeides (Greek) [from thymos passional soul + eidos form] The name given by Plato to a division of the psychomental nature, the animal or passional soul, kama-manas, in contrast with a still lower division of kama-manas which he called epithumetikon (appetitive, or that which has appetite for). Above both these, which together comprise what other Greek philosophers called the psyche, is the nous, the seat of inspiration, intuition, the highest intellection, and similar noble attributes or faculties, corresponding to the buddhi-manas or atma-buddhi-manas.

Epithumia (Greek) In Greek metaphysics, equivalent in the human constitution to kama or the desire principle. Psyche or soul was a union of bios (physical vitality, prana), epithumia, and phren or mens (mind, manas). {BCW 1:292, 365} "Pythagoras and Plato both divided soul into two representative parts, independent of each other -- the one, the rational soul, or [[logos]], the other irrational, [[alogos]] -- the latter being again subdivided into two parts or aspects the [[thymichon]] and the [[epithymichon]], which, with the divine soul and its spirit and the body, make the seven principles of Theosophy" {BCW 7:229}. See also PRINCIPLES

Well thanks much, mensagitat, for clearing up those Greek terms. I have little more to discuss on this unless someone wants me to discuss Pryse, McCleave, and the Shaktis... but that could be mostly for another thread.

Apparently the 3 words I did not know about are the same 3 parts of the soul Plato described. However each has some additional meanings...

if Augoeides is the Nous, it is not the mere nous (lowercase) but is also Logos, esp. the logos within man, i.e. the rational soul--which are in fact rational souls because they are all the souls within the monad or jivatman, and Augoeides may be the nous as logos. Some people, even HPB, add in psyche or another term between pneuma and nous. I guess that is how her esoteric classification works, because, again, it does not have monad as paramatma except Divine Monad, not some human consciousness higher than pneuma--it is just greater as a whole greater than the sum of its parts, but a conservative Theosophist would say the sum and parts are connected to the higher Monad. A neo-Theosophist might say the whole monad is more connected to the Divine Monad. I wonder how many would say all monad is Monad as more than a hyperbole (allegory: metaphor, simile, etc..) But, that topic is rarely interesting unless someone may have less to do than they need to do.

Augoeides is still interesting because who knows what it really denotes in the heptad? My recent list of that was 'wrong' in the Greek, but I will leave it as an idea, because I do not really know what the non-base and base (upadhi) of mind are if there are 3 parts to mind as in the so-called esoteric Buddhism classification.

From another point of view, our whole consciousness is but a basis for Divinity's, so logos (the Platonic reasonable soul) as a basis for Logos, and our whole consciousness as a basis for it, can eliminate the idea of a mental triad (rather than duad,) which sort of messes up the idea of 7 principles with the lowest on each of the 4 planes of human consciousness being a basis for the higher principle on each.

Also, 'psyche' has come to mean 'nous,' not just an arbitrary higher nous whether in a mental duad or triad. That is why I am leaving my 'wrong' classification: it is not necessarily a neo-Theosophy that says there is both a mental triad and human divine monad beyond pneuma: if you want both of those there would be 8 principles. Maybe some other ancient/Classical esoteric systems have 8, or maybe I was wrong, but it is not that important.

Actually I see I did use the exact same heptad as mensagitat. My line above it was supposed to be a mere heading. OTOH, it uses the convention that Plato says 'reason is above spirit.' In that sense it combines his triad with esoteric Buddhism. Hopefully if that is neo-Theosophical it is in a good way: just a questioning and dialectic way. Octad/Ogdoad has more symbolism in Egyptian religion anyway, not necessarily human principles unless you have insight into what HPB says the earliest recorded Egyptian priests could not understand.

IIRC, Plato did at least use the term 'thumoeides;' I have glanced at the Greek, though I do not recall if he said 'thymos' or if it was a synonym. That is why augoeides is still fascinating. I think I have looked it up and I recall HPB writing it now, but I will come back to mensagitat's descriptions... it is a good set... but now I am wondering about 'phantastikon' too.

Mensagitat, your description of soul almost sounds like a 'lower triad' ('as is below so is above; as is above so is below:' hexagram) because 'bios' is left out. 'Soul' may have also come to mean any of the 7 principles if one compares & contrasts 'karanopadhi' and '7 spirits before the throne,' because that analysis & comparison synonymizes 'spirit' & 'soul,' though they also have many other connotations.

Hi DavidC, I find it interesting where you quoted Plato as saying reason is above spirit. I suppose some might jump in and say, Divine is above Spirit and knows, meaning it does not need to reason.

So far, I have only seen a galaxy as the furthest reach of our thought in regard to distint charting of hierarchies. Who am I to suggest that the Divine Monad, having a galaxy as Its field, is the Pinnacle or End in regard to upward evolution? I'm not comparing to me. In my case, I would not feel in error describing the Divine Monad as the Pinnacle of Perfection.

I work more than 40hrs a week and also have other social engagements beyond work and home. It is simply that once home, I am only on my time, and I do not let the television dominate my time.

I've had experiences that are paranormal, and I want a metaphysical framework or construction upon which to see Reality. Theosophy seems to give this better than anything else I've come across. I really have a strong distaste for new age idea's but know not to eliminate their idea's entirely.

It was great seeing your return to this forum. Your way beyond me in certain area's while upon others, I can keep up if I run a little faster. :D

I want to tear my life apart, removing gula, luxuria, in order to enter into fields beyond this physically dense one. I know I can but don't want to unless I'm cleaned up a bit. Know ye not that ye shall judge angels? It is so easy to let things remain binded to me.

1. Paramatman
2. Alaya-Swabhavat or Cosmic Maha-buddhi
3. Mahat
4. Manasaputric Hierarchies
5. Cosmic Jiva
6. Astral World
7. Earth

Wow! Paramatman is superior to Alaya. I'm simply thinking lately, upon Akasa being eternal and superior to the Astral Light. "...Sometimes the astral light is used as a convenient but inaccurate phrase for akasa. In clarifying the difference between these Blavatsky says: "The Astral Light is that which mirrors the three higher planes of consciousness, and is above the lower, or terrestrial plane; therefore it does not extend beyond the fourth plane, where, one may say, the Akasa begins.

"There is one great difference between the Astral Light and the Akasa which must be remembered. The latter is eternal, the former is periodic. The Astral Light changes not only with the Mahamanvantaras but also with every sub-period and planetary cycle or Round. . . . "

I am not so sure I should have said reason is above spirit 'pneuma' because IIRC Plato said it is above spirit 'thymos.' However if Logos is a triad as monad and is a cause, then if it is on the 1st 3 planes and is one with pneuma on the 4th it is not far-fetched to call it another consciousness--unless HPB meant someting else is on the 1st plane and the triad Logos is on 2 - 4--but that would be speculation as odd as any, and one could still list Logos as one with pneuma on those planes.

Now that we have been talking about more large-scale consciousness I would just like to say that 'Divine Monad' can mean either the Logoic triad or Parabrahm if 'The One' was used as a Pythagorean epithet for the Hermetic 'The All,' i.e. Parabrahm. Parabrahm is still of course a unity of itself and everything, and it is called 'the one' 'root cause principle,' i.e. 'causeless cause,' IIRC.

This was just to clarify more of the Greek terminology.

I guess the Wikipedia article on the soul has only 2 of probably 3 classifications: it has the ones with eros and epithymikon but not epithumia. Actually I wonder if that is in a 3rd triad classification or if Plato used these words without the soul idea for some other reason. I just know I have seen 'epithumia' in Greek when he was at least sort of discussing the topic.

Reason is given a certain perspective is it not? I'm reminded of the following line in a movie, "... it's a fool who searches for logic in the chambors of the heart." :rolleyes: I suppose most of us have to look upon past actions carried out under the rule of an emotion, with reason utilized to envision another action as being possibly more appropriate. That seemed a bit simplistic. I'll leave it there anyway.

Mention of the man having seven centers, each center having seven centers? or rays, is a concept I've seen a few times. I wonder if this a matter where one may attempt something along the lines of attaining a 'magnetic center'.

I'm thinking this might be approaching Theopathy.

I do not see why reason would be given a perspective. Every consciousness from infinity to intellect to incarnation is somehow reasonable. Now what if that quote said '... it is a fool who searches for Logos in the chambers of the heart.' To me everyone is a fool who thinks emotion is not reasonable: it is either in a denser plane within intellect or (according to HPB) is the upadhi of intellect. Some people also say the mind is not reasonable, yet again all human intelligence is within Logos' infinity. Maybe Logos is not all infinity, i.e. Parabrahm, but infinity is still a cause or reason.

Your comment on Theopathy is interesting; I would like to hear more about what that is.

Reason cannot be a perspective because it cannot be an object?

Pascal: "The heart hath reasons that reason doth not know." Also compare Sartre's "en-soi" and "pour-soi" which can never come together---q.v. "Being and Nothingness," by Sartre. We are either object or subject, never both at once---except to Pascal and "Christianity."

What and where is nothingness? my previous post was a version of President Reagon's, "well... I uh". Are you familiar with that famous line? :D

If I do answer DaveC's last question, it is not going to be done quickly. I have to ponder upon it.

If I were to say the Circle exemplifies the Kosmos, and the Point within the circle is the germ.

That Germ or Swabhava is extremely Wonderful to be the Source of what I see within this MahaMaya.

When It divides to become male and female, it is the Double Sexed Deity, with the bottom of the triangle being Space.

Now I think the result of the above begets the Son. Yet, this Son being at the Apex of the triangle of a Hierarchy, is the Father. The Duad on the left is referred to as Evil, for it is Matter, the Substance during Manvantara. The right leg of the triangle is the Son, but also known as the Husband. At the base is a broad spectrum of differentiated matter. So a consciousness would only be latent within the Elements, and as an individual consciousness moves up the triangle, with the decreasing distance between the legs of the triangle, I would conceive of an integration of all the finest and sublime, the noblest and most spiritual.

I suppose I'm seeing this as the individual being in the middle of the force/substance, but not necessarily so, yet, like the current that runs from the positive terminal to the negative terminal, I know the individual consciousness is located somewhere within that flow.

I'm envisioning something I'm not sure I can articulate: At the base of the triangle, the widest gulf between the left and right legs, it seems this is the most dense material, so I assume the gulf between the legs nearer the apex indicates substance is much more etereal, or tenuous, whereas my current location, or rather the current position of my stula sarira, is... ?

"Thou shalt not let thy senses make a ... Playground of thy mind."

How well do I allign my thoughts with the above quote? I'm working on possessing a constitution capable of honest self appraisal, rather than blaming external influences effecting me.

The science of logic sometimes takes 'logos' ('reason,' etc.) as an object. If reason is a word then it is also an object. In its original state it is unlimited, but when one concentrates it from a state such as inspiration down to intellect or more it may also be limited. In the Taraka Raja Yoga upadhis classification perhaps atman and the highest 2 upadhis clearly have reason... but even the lowest upadhi must be reasonable in its consciousness part or it would be uncontrollable and probably (as well as the body) never aesthetic. Maybe only one upadhi directly translates as 'reason,' but it translates back as atman in Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. The Buddhist classification of sheaths it seems there is more than one sheath called 'reason' if one wants to limit that to mental definitions, which is unecessary. Note that buddhi is often called reasons--I guess that is why nous sort of translates as it, though I thought psyche translates as it better, which is one with Logos if spirit-soul is pneuma-psyche. That has to be reasonable.

Another (rhetorical) question is: does the heart really have to do with plain emotions or does it also have to do with higher parts of the mind that transcends emotions?

I just noticed in my notes I have the following terms.

augoeides
thumoeides
astroeides (astral body or bodies)

That is another triad sort of like Plato's 2 that rhyme. It seems close enough to those, but I may have some more notes about the details we have not already discussed. Actually I have already posted all the terms. It may remain to be seen what some of them mean in relation to each other.

Hi David. I haven't seen that term. I looked it up, and it seems that astroeides was used as another description for augoeides.

I'm going to look into it a bit more. But I think that is all there is to it; another term used to describe the augoeides.

I guess you are right. However I thought augoeides was part of the higher self if it--the radiant body--is sort of like the rainbow body of Tibetan Buddhiism. I also thought it was used in descriptions of what one contacts when contacting one's holy guardian angel (HGA.) Maybe I am wrong. I wonder if the term 'epithumoeides' would be relevant since there is 'epithymikon' besides 'epithumia.' However, both the classifications those are in need something to define the prana-related bodies; this is all still a bit confusing: I guess last time I looked up all the words I found out the same definition you said in the post I am replying to.