What is it that reincarnates?

I commented on the previous thread, about "the ancestral heart'. These thoughts struck me, as I continue to read The Secret Doctrine. The words "reincarnating ego" sound so western to me, and seem to be to annalitical.

HPB writes, " ...in Egyptian esoteric ism, the "ancestral heart," or re-incarnating principle, the permanent Ego, the defunct says:- "Oh, my heart, my ancestral heart necessary for my transformations,......do not separate thyself from me before the guardian of the Scales. Thou art my personality within my breast, divine companion watching over my fleshes (bodies)......." It is in Sekhem that lies concealed "the Mysterious Face," or the real man concealed under the false personality, the triple-crocodile of Egypt, the symbol of the higher Trinity or human Triad, Atma, Buddhi, and Manas." (S.D I,220)

Then, ""I am the three-wicked Flame and my wicks are immortal," says the defunct. " (S.D. I,237)

G.de P. writes in "The Occult Glossary", under Reincarnating Ego, "When death occurs, the mortal and material portions sink into oblivion; whist the Reincarnating Ego carries the best and noblest parts of the spiritual memory of the man that was into Devachan or Heaven-world of post-mortem rest and recuperation, where the Ego remains in the bosom of the Monad (or of the Monadic Essence)..."

I do not know if HPB speaks of the "bosom of the monad", but the symbol of the "heart" speaks strongly to my thoughts. To me this symbol of heart relates both to the Ego and Monad.

Jim B.

On the previous page, Nick posted a chart which defined atma-buddhi as monad (jiva.) Is this not a metaphor? I think atma is the vehicle of jiva, and both are high enough consciousness to be termed spirit proper (besides that the 7 principles are 'the 7 spirits,') so there can be confusion between them, but it seems they are really two sorts of spirit. IIRC HPB both implied/said atma is the vehicle of monad, and called atma monad (which seems a metaphor.) There has to be consciousness connecting spirit of Pranava/Logos to individual spirit, and it seems jiva--monad--is the highest individual spirit (of course Logos may be individual but it is also collective.)

With the idea that pneuma (atma) is the vehicle of monad, then Logos, monad, pneuma, psyche, and nous incarnate in thymos incarnates in bios.

Nick's other chart that asks "Live one more incarnation" is good but part is too simple. It seems people could also decide to live one more reincarnation after a time in the astral (or perhaps more properly termed, temporal) plane. They could also decide not to reincarnate in a mental body for a long time, and perhaps do emotional plane incarnations. In fact I think there are 4 'vestures' of incarnation that may not include the material world.

http://www.energyreality.com has interesting illustrations of the subtle bodies and descriptions of their worlds ('planes.') The author also calls the worlds dimensional. I did not quite stay in the state where I could observe it, but if they are dimensional (such as the 'astral' plane being temporal--having a time dimension) then each one has a larger space and each higher subtle body is larger--just draw or look at a tesseract (4-dimensional cube,) penteract (5-dimensional,) etc.--each higher one is larger and made by connecting vertices of 2 lower ones. If you want to see hypercubes search for these terms and mathcurve.com, which has the best, orthogonal--centered, drawings of ones up to 9-d. I have noticed similarities between hexeracts and descriptions of the soul lotus.

David,

HPB was inconsistent in her use of the terms Jiva, Jivatman, and Monad. Geoffrey Barborka has addressed this issue in his book, The Divine Plan, pp. 20 and 89, especially HPB's confused mixing of the two terms Jiva and Jivatman. The Monad is the Atman plus Buddhi.



** DP = The Divine Plan by G. Barborka

i-7-5 refers to Stanzas of Dzyan, Book 1, Stanza 7 Shloka 5

Not according to HPB. Atman is a ray of the Absolute, therefore, we could not even call it "spirit". It becomes a "spirit" when reflected in Buddhi, forming thus the "Monad". To assign any quality or place or limitation to Atman is a metaphysical mistake.

The absolute (Logos) can be called divine spirit, so of course atman can be called individual (or divine if you think) spirit--buddhi is soul, and in English what is defined beyond that is all 3 of regular human, higher individual (or divine,) and pure divine spirit. If one takes a closer look at the Egyptian and Hebrew lists of principles in SD, and reads the Greek ones, these correspondences become clear.

There cannot be a consciousness gap between the adi and atmic planes--if there was no anupadaka consciousness there would be no lower consciousness. Do you call this anupadaka (note also called monadic plane by Adyar Theosophists, though some people disagree with them) consciousness also atma? Usually it is called jiva, purusha, or paramatma, the latter especially denoting something beyond atma, like Paranirvana is a Nirvanic plane beyond the lowest Nirvana. If anupadaka is a divine plane it has to have consciousness, and if it is the highest plane of individual consciousness, each living being must have a paramatman but their atman, buddhi, manas, or kama are not necessarily developed enough to be defined existent.

It is more of a metaphysical mistake to mix an idea's terms from different languages. HPB did it, and she got people to think, but did not necessarily make anything clear.

I find your terminology somewhat confusing... I don't see how we could say that the Logos is the Absolute. Neither of the Logos (1st, 2nd or 3rd) are the Absolute. Every Logos is new in its own system when it is manifested. Therefore, it cannot be absolute. The Absolute (Parabrahman) is beyond the Logos, and it is said that the latter cannot even perceive it, it only perceives its veil, Mulaprakriti.

>The Absolute (Parabrahman) is beyond the Logos...

It depends on terminology: you mixed Sanatana Dharma and Hellenismos Philosophy terms. Anyway, Parabrahman can be called divine spirit, so what I said still may make sense.

If Parabrahman is Shabdhabrahman, the latter is a synonym for Logos. Monad Agathon ('the one' 'the good') is still Parabrahman, but that involves the word monad, which is also less than Logos.

What about paramatman (or some spirit) being beyond atman?

dchmelik,

I'm talking according to HPB's terminology. If you read the First Fundamental Proposition in the Proem of the Secret Doctrine, you will find a "definition" of Parabrahman or the Absolute Reality.
It seems to me you don't have the concept of the Absolute in your philosophical conception, because again, Shabdhabrahman is the Unmanifested Logos, not the Absolute.
You could call Atman "the universal spirit", as a figure of speech, but that is misleading from an esoteric point of view. If you read the instructions of HPB to the Esoteric School in the Collected Writings Vol XII or the Third Volume of the Secret Doctrine you will find what I'm saying about Atman.

David,

You are going to have trouble if you try to find English equivalents for all of these terms from Sanskrit, etc. For example, HPB used the word spirit to describe the First Logos. She also used the word spirit to describe Atman. Clearly, the First Logos and Atman are not the same thing.

"The Absolute (Parabrahman) is beyond the Logos... --> It depends on terminology...."

--> No, it does not. The Logos is a periodic and temporary emanation from the Absolute.

"you mixed Sanatana Dharma and Hellenismos Philosophy terms...."

--> Theosophists are familiar with HPB's terminology, so things will be simpler if we stick more to her preferred terminology. The term Monad Agathon may or may not be equivalent to the term Parabrahman, but Parabrahman is the term we are all familiar with, so it just makes things easier to call Parabrahman by the name Parabrahman.

I continue the 'What is the highest consciousness that [re]incarnates [in us]?' dialectic until the last 2 paragraphs, but note that since some say the absolute is rather undefinable the question 'What is it that reincarnates?' continues more in the last paragraph.

Logos and atman differ no[t much] more than spiritual triad principles do--they are all spiritual, and one defines each ' [adjective] spirit' (as I did in my consciousness/intelligence/spirit post in 'Concepts' board.)

Parabrahman and Shabdhabraman may differ, but both may be Logoic according to Christians/Nazareans and likely some Hellenismos Philosophers. Logos is not only Word/pranava but an idea[l]: Parabrahman is ideal.

It may be easier to mix terms from different philosophies and languages, but I would not say it is simpler or completely facilitates cultural/religious understanding/tolerance. Mixing terms may conduce understanding/tolerance, but it is easier/tolerant to consider/use language/cultural viewpoints. I meant if Logos (a.k.a. Word Deity) is not Parabrahman, there is still a Greek term--the more full definition of Monad ('the one') Agathon ('the good') is 'the one [absolute] ideal form[s] of good.' Ideal forms are monads, and Platonically 'the one'/'the good' is absolute (or a main absolute, though there may be others, so you are right it may or may not be Parabrahman, though I think Monad Agathon also means 'absolute good.' If its only other attribute is being ideal, I think Monad Agathon is equivalent to Parabrahman and the Nazarean Logos--though perhaps there is a quabalah idea beyond Logos, OTOH some Nazareans or even Hellenismos Philosophers might mean both absolute and shabdha/pranava/nada by it.)

As I said previously and above, HPB mixes terminology. She says there may be other correct ideas. I have read SD 1 - 3 in the last 4 or 9 years (depending when I started, with months between vol. 2 and finding vol. 3.) I do have an 'absolute' concept... I do not recall if HPB discusses Shabdhabrahman, but Parabrahman is also unmanifest, so Logos is not necessarily excluded from meaning Parabrahman, if its only English term is 'deity's/absolute spirit' and Logos is Greek for 'highest spirit' (it seems more appropriate than Agathon, but do you know something more appropriate? IIRC some definitions of Chaos, even Zeus, etc. may work) Parabrahman--a divine name, thus spiritual--can be called deity-spirit. I do not recall, but maybe Parabrahman is beyond causeless cause, which from Nazarean philosophy I consider Logos Deity (as well as this partly being cause-effect,) but I think Parabrahman is absolute ideal causeless cause Deity. You do not have to think Logoi are 'absolute ideal causeless cause' & 'cause-effect,' but I consider them mostly the former (and some monists may think they are more equally both; I am somewhat heptaist-infinitist when even numerotheist) until my Quabalah & neo-Platonism study indicates otherwise. I do not think this topic is so interesting.

It is just not so interesting speculating/defining what is beyond Logoi (starting on adi according to either Adyar Theosophists or Arcane School, which I am unsure is right by HPB or members here) which besides fully or partly incarnating in us, are also beyond us as it is.

What about anapudaka (also called monadic?) Do you think incarnated on it are Logoi, monads, other type of spirit, or a gap between an adi Logos/Shabdhabrahman and atmic pneuma/atma? I do think the Adyar idea 'triple manifestation' implies anapudakan and and atmic Logoi, though that idea as illustrated also shows an adi triad which I tend to consider the triple Logoi, though two are reflected in anupadaka and atma (saying they are really there would seem trinitarian.) Do some people think the 2nd, 3rd Logoi manifest in anupadaka and atma and so these should not be called spirit, though HPB calls [adi] Logos spirit, or do you think it should just not be defined because she says no one will know them (which also seems trinitarian) in this universe? Maybe (unlikely, at least by abductive reason) we cannot know what highest human consciousness is, but we can abduce there are at least 2 higher consciousnesses than humanity and that besides these there is highest human consciousness. Maybe there is a gap (or more) between adic and atmic or buddhic consciousness, but IIRC HPB said humanity will not know adi, anupadaka, atma in this universe, and it may be more sensible that the gap is between anupadakan and buddhic consciousness. The highest individual consciousness, which I still say is paramatman beyond atman, should be closest to the highest consciousness whatsoever, or there would be lower 'highest consciousness whatsoever' which makes less sense unless one thinks humans are the most developed beings. Saying paramatma are developed without doing so in a vehicle might be odd, and that only leaves atma for higher-than-human beings, though all beings may have a highest individual consciousness. Maybe lower-than-human beings' highest individual consciousness is lower, such as atma, though this is also rather odd. Leibniz lists both self-perceptive and non-self-perceptive monads, so one could say monads are paramatma and atma, but the non-self-perception could also just be lack of buddhi. Whatever you think about this, there has to be some anupadaka consciousness; what 'principle [of man]' do you think incarnates there into the 'principles in man' (note the preposition's difference?)

dchmelik,

Yes, of course we can compare terms and philosophies. That is one of the objects of the Theosophical Society and it has been doing that for more than 130 years. But to compare terms means to see what terms are synonyms and what are different. You cannot loosely say “they are the same" because "they are all spiritual" or "they are both unmanifested". That is a wide generalization.
To perform a comparative study is very difficult. It is not merely a question of reading tons of books on different philosophies and put terms together. One has to know fairly well at least one system to be able to compare the others with that one. If you know the fundamentals of modern theosophy fairly well, for example, then you have to study a second philosophy (or part of it) and understand it fairly well either, and only then you can compare. Otherwise, comparison leads to a confusion of undefined terms. Only with that careful attitude free from wild generalizations a comparative study can be fruitful. You keep saying that Logos and Absolute are the same. And now you say there could be more than one absolute. That is a complete contradiction of terms!

The Logos is the First Cause of the universe, but it is not a causeless cause. The Absolute is the causeless cause. What could possibly be beyond a causeless cause? We have to meditate on the meaning of the terms. What is a cause? Is it possible for something to be without cause? What does "causeless" imply? If we play with words without a clear concept of those, then the study has little value.
I can't answer or discuss your questions because, from my point of view, they have an unwarranted mixture of concepts, so I don’t know what you are trying to say. When you write the word Absolute you are meaning something completely different from what I understand when reading that word. How is communication (and investigation) possible in that case? Please, could you define what Logos is and what Absolute is for you? May be we can move on after being clear on that point. The concept of the Absolute Reality and its "relationship" with the Logoi and the rest of the manifested world is a fundamental idea in Theosophy. After that, we can discuss about the different planes of manifestation and the resultant differentiated consciousness in them.

You reincarnate. Side stepping all the terminology, etc; you reincarnate. You live, die, are birthed into the next life, and birth into the life after that. You. There is only the present. We perceive events in the context of time because we inhabit bodies that are subject to the laws of time. Once out of these bodies we can look forward and back in "said time" and always be in the present. That is all there really is, the present. Divinity creates, infuses, lives in the present. We are the Present. Compartmentalizing, as Aristotle liked to do, complicates. Heraclitus wrote of a stream that is always different every time we step into it, because when we step into it that is the Present at that moment. The stream was different two minutes ago when we first stepped into it and will be different two minutes in the future when we step into it again. You reincarnate.

Jeff

dchmelik

The Mahatmas have also voiced their view, which is that it is the "spiritual ego" that reincarnates; perhaps more pointedly it is the solely immortal feelings of “love” and “hatred” that figuratively and perhaps literally are situated as those two poles of man’s “Soul,” which is a unity.

Specifically, the Mahatmas were faced with such a question as yours, albeit with some variations, when they were vilely challenged and condemned by A.O.Hume, then President of the Eclectic Theosophical Society of Simla; who was supported in the prose of a legal defense proffered by then Vice-President A.P.Sinnett. The accusations were allowed by the Cohan himself, because they felt Theosophy should expect to be questioned, and should be able to return a rational and reasonable reply for its views. Your “theosophical right” to convey your terminology from your degree of understanding and choice of venues is sanctified through this discourse presented in ML-111, ML-24A, ML-24B of “the Mahatma Letters to A.P.Sinnett,” at minimum. The president of the Theosophical Society, and H.P.B. herself, have also formally issued views of similar sentiment and conviction.

The condemnation of the Mahatmas was, indeed, printed in a primary theosophical publication; …“the Theosophist,” if memory serves. However, “fair is fair,” and following the pre-meditated wisdom of the Cohan, the chelas published a protest followed by a pointed rebuttal by Mahatma Koot’ Hoomi Lal Singh himself in a letter in response to A.P.Sinnett and Hume’s accusations of contradictory statements. Therein, a central point of confrontation centered around what reincarnates – in part. The answer is drawn-out, but summarized more concisely towards the end of the drama.

Reference pages 253 – 266 of the Letters (Chronological Barker version), I should think, to get the full jest as it would apply to your question.

Christian von Lahr

Pablo,
You are quite systematical about this, which is good or I would not have recalled all HPB's books' details. Absolute good, absolute truth, etc. are examples of more than one absolute.

To answer you, I consider the absolute (you refer to) to be without beginning and end, or at least without measured beginning ('absolute' could be different for higher beings incl. 'the absolute' itself if it is a being, though there may be an abstract definition applying to all beings--such as consciousness itself.) I consider Logos to be its Greek definition and most/all its Theosophical definition--esp. 'Word, idea[l.]' Denotations can use some parts and exclude other parts of definitions, so Logoic idea[l] can perhaps still describe the absolute. As for Logos only meaning a being with a beginning of course it is not the absolute; now I will finish discussing that. I gave Hellenismos examples of what it could be instead, though I may not be right.... As for Nazarean philosophy, I suppose Elohim, Ain (unlikely,) Ain-soph, or Ain-Soph aur (unlikely,) or Shekhinah could describe the absolute. However, according to Zohar Elohim and Ain-Soph are a duality, so I am not sure what else describes the absolute--I am not through with Zohar, but the absolute in Quabalah must have been referenced by HPB, so I suspect it is Shekhinah, but it is just as likely to be part of the named duality. Perhaps though it is another sacred name in Judaism (such as one of the '7 sacred' besides Elohim,) most of which HPB also mentions. The only other one I would guess is 'Ehyeh-asher-ehyeh,' though maybe the entire Shemhamphorae or entire section of Tanakh that comprises a longer name would be it.

I guess a way some Theosophists would prefer to describe 2nd plane consciousness is only 'a ray of the absolute,' and on the 3rd plane it is also described in other ways; am I right? However I read somewhere that monads are also said to emit a ray, and this may be from the system that would call monad above atma-buddi. Do you think there is an esoteric or rational way to combine the systems or that only one is right, such as only HPB's one should be discussed?

Christian,
Thank you for your reference to the letters. That is the only main Theosophy text I have not got into yet....

Smartja or also anyone,
You may say 'you' reincarnate, but what do you (or others) think of the Theosophy-based description of worlds/planes at http://www.energyreality.com/? I think it is quite interesting. Some people say 'meta'physical worlds should not have dimension, but scientifically there may be no other way to define them.

--Bro. David

David,

You said,

"Absolute good, absolute truth, etc. are examples of more than one absolute."

--> Not according to HPB.

"...I consider the absolute (you refer to) to be without beginning and end, or at least ... I consider Logos to be its Greek definition and most/all its Theosophical definition...."

--> Not according to HPB.

"As for Logos only meaning a being with a beginning of course it is not the absolute...."

--> HPB would describe the Logos as more of a principle than a being. One of HPB's biggest battles was to stop anthropomorphization.

"...I suppose Elohim, Ain (unlikely,) Ain-soph, or Ain-Soph aur (unlikely,) or Shekhinah could describe the absolute."

--> HPB would not include Elohim in such a list. Even the Bible says the Earth was not created by a single God, but by a group of "gods." This gets us into the "Double Creation Story" dilemma in the Bible. The Bible says our human race was created twice, once on Day Six of Creation, and again during the story of Adam and Eve. Theosophy removes this dilemma completely.

"...this may be from the system that would call monad above atma-buddi."

--> I am not aware of a Monad above Atma-Buddhi."

"Do you think there is an esoteric or rational way to combine the systems or that only one is right, such as only HPB's one should be discussed?"

--> HPB gave us one particular philosophical system. It is good to compare her system to other systems, because it gives us the opportunity to decide which ideas make sense and which do not. The very purpose of this Forum is to compare Theosophy with other philosophies. For example, there may be philosophies that say the Absolute and Elohim are the same things, or that the human race was created twice. Theosophy is only too happy to spread ideas that are completely different.

Many of the world's religions do not want us to "stir up the pot" and ask critical questions of that religion. On the other hand, Theosophy encourages such critical thinking and questioning. I have known several Christians who were irritated by my questioning of the Double Creation Story in the Bible. Theosophy encourages me to ask such questions.

"...what do you (or others) think of the Theosophy-based description of worlds/planes at http://www.energyreality.com/?"

--> For those of us who do have time to go and read that webpage, feel free to describe what you are talking about.

"I think it is quite interesting. Some people say 'meta'physical worlds should not have dimension, but scientifically there may be no other way to define them."

--> I think it is perfectly fine to say that various planes of existence have various dimensions.