VI. THEOSOPHICAL TEACHINGS AS TO NATURE AND MAN.

THE UNITY OF ALL IN ALL.

ENQ. Having told me what God, the Soul and Man are _not_, in your
views, can you inform me what they _are_, according to your
teachings?

THEO. In their origin and in eternity the three, like the universe and
all therein, are one with the absolute Unity, the unknowable
deific essence I spoke about sometime back. We believe in no
_creation_, but in the periodical and consecutive appearances of
the universe from the subjective on to the objective plane of
being, at regular intervals of time, covering periods of immense
duration.

ENQ. Can you elaborate the subject?

THEO. Take as a first comparison and a help towards a more correct
conception, the solar year, and as a second, the two halves
of that year, producing each a day and a night of six months’
duration at the North Pole. Now imagine, if you can, instead of
a Solar year of 365 days, ETERNITY. Let the sun represent the
universe, and the polar days and nights of 6 months each—_days
and nights lasting each 182 trillions and quadrillions of years_,
instead of 182 days each. As the sun arises every morning on our
_objective_ horizon out of its (to us) _subjective_ and antipodal
space, so does the Universe emerge periodically on the plane of
objectivity, issuing from that of subjectivity—the antipodes of
the former. This is the “Cycle of Life.” And as the sun disappears
from our horizon, so does the Universe disappear at regular
periods, when the “Universal night” sets in. The Hindoos call
such alternations the “Days and Nights of Brahma,” or the time of
_Manvantara_ and that of _Pralaya_ (dissolution). The Westerns may
call them Universal Days and Nights if they prefer. During the
latter (the nights) _All is in All_; every atom is resolved into
one Homogeneity.


EVOLUTION AND ILLUSION.

ENQ. But who is it that creates each time the Universe?

THEO. No one creates it. Science would call the process evolution; the
pre-Christian philosophers and the Orientalists called it
emanation: we, Occultists and Theosophists, see in it the only
universal and eternal _reality_ casting a periodical reflection of
_itself_ on the infinite Spatial depths. This reflection, which
you regard as the objective _material_ universe, we consider as a
temporary _illusion_ and nothing else. That alone which is eternal
is _real_.

ENQ. At that rate, you and I are also illusions.

THEO. As flitting personalities, to-day one person, to-morrow
another—we are. Would you call the sudden flashes of the _Aurora
borealis_, the Northern lights, a “reality,” though it is as real
as can be while you look at it? Certainly not; it is the cause
that produces it, if permanent and eternal, which is the only
reality, while the other is but a passing illusion.

ENQ. All this does not explain to me how this illusion called the
universe originates; how the conscious _to be_, proceeds to
manifest itself from the unconsciousness that _is_.

THEO. It is _unconsciousness_ only to our finite consciousness. Verily
may we paraphrase verse v, in the 1st chapter of St. John,
and say “and (Absolute) light (which is darkness) shineth in
darkness (which is illusionary material light); and the darkness
comprehendeth it not.” This absolute light is also absolute and
immutable law. Whether by radiation or emanation—we need not
quarrel over terms—the universe passes out of its homogeneous
subjectivity on to the first plane of manifestation, of which
planes there are seven, we are taught. With each plane it becomes
more dense and material until it reaches this, our plane, on which
the only world approximately known and understood in its physical
composition by Science, is the planetary or Solar system—one _sui
generis_, we are told.

ENQ. What do you mean by _sui generis_?

THEO. I mean that, though the fundamental law and the universal working
of laws of Nature are uniform, still our Solar system (like every
other such system in the millions of others in Cosmos) and even
our Earth, has its own programme of manifestations differing
from the respective programmes of all others. We speak of the
inhabitants of other planets and imagine that if they are _men_,
_i.e._, thinking entities, they must be as we are. The fancy of
poets and painters and sculptors never fails to represent even
the angels as a beautiful copy of man—_plus_ wings. We say that
all this is an error and a delusion; because, if on this little
earth alone one finds such a diversity in its flora, fauna and
mankind—from the seaweed to the cedar of Lebanon, from the
jelly-fish to the elephant, from the Bushman and negro to the
Apollo Belvedere—alter the conditions cosmic and planetary, and
there must be as a result quite a different flora, fauna and
mankind. The same laws will fashion quite a different set of
things and beings even on this our plane, including in it all
our planets. How much more different then must be _external_
nature in other Solar systems, and how foolish is it to judge of
other _stars_ and worlds and human beings by our own, as physical
science does!

ENQ. But what are your data for this assertion?

THEO. What science in general will never accept as proof—the cumulative
testimony of an endless series of Seers who have testified to this
fact. Their spiritual visions, real explorations by, and through,
physical and spiritual senses untrammeled by blind flesh, were
systematically checked and compared one with the other, and their
nature sifted. All that was not corroborated by unanimous and
collective experience was rejected, while that only was recorded
as established truth which, in various ages, under different
climes, and throughout an untold series of incessant observations,
was found to agree and receive constantly further corroboration.
The methods used by our scholars and students of the
psycho-spiritual sciences do not differ from those of students of
the natural and physical sciences, as you may see. Only our fields
of research are on two different planes, and our instruments are
made by no human hands, for which reason perchance they are only
the more reliable. The retorts, accumulators, and microscopes of
the chemist and naturalist may get out of order; the telescope
and the astronomer’s horological instruments may get spoiled; our
recording instruments are beyond the influence of weather or the
elements.

ENQ. And therefore you have implicit faith in them?

THEO. Faith is a word not to be found in theosophical dictionaries: we
say _knowledge based on observation and experience_. There is this
difference, however, that while the observation and experience of
physical science lead the Scientists to about as many “working”
hypotheses as there are minds to evolve them, our _knowledge_
consents to add to its lore only those facts which have become
undeniable, and which are fully and absolutely demonstrated. We
have no two beliefs or hypotheses on the same subject.

ENQ. Is it on such data that you came to accept the strange theories we
find in _Esoteric Buddhism_?

THEO. Just so. These theories may be slightly incorrect in their minor
details, and even faulty in their exposition by lay students; they
are _facts_ in nature, nevertheless, and come nearer the truth
than any scientific hypothesis.


ON THE SEPTENARY CONSTITUTION OF OUR PLANET.

ENQ. I understand that you describe our earth as forming part of a
chain of earths?

THEO. We do. But the other six “earths” or globes, are not on the same
plane of objectivity as our earth is; therefore we cannot see them.

ENQ. Is that on account of the great distance?

THEO. Not at all, for we see with our naked eye planets and even stars
at immeasurably greater distances; but it is owing to those six
globes being outside our physical means of perception, or plane
of being. It is not only that their material density, weight, or
fabric are entirely different from those of our earth and the
other known planets; but they are (to us) on an entirely different
_layer_ of space, so to speak; a layer not to be perceived or felt
by our physical senses. And when I say “layer,” please do not
allow your fancy to suggest to you layers like strata or beds laid
one over the other, for this would only lead to another absurd
misconception. What I mean by “layer” is that plane of infinite
space which by its nature cannot fall under our ordinary waking
perceptions, whether mental or physical; but which exists in
nature outside of our normal mentality or consciousness, outside
of our three dimensional space, and outside of our division of
time. Each of the seven fundamental planes (or layers) in space—of
course as a whole, as the pure space of Locke’s definition, not as
our finite space—has its own objectivity and subjectivity, its own
space and time, its own consciousness and set of senses. But all
this will be hardly comprehensible to one trained in the modern
ways of thought.

ENQ. What do you mean by a different set of senses? Is there anything
on our human plane that you could bring as an illustration of what
you say, just to give a clearer idea of what you may mean by this
variety of senses, spaces, and respective perceptions?

THEO. None; except, perhaps, that which for Science would be rather a
handy peg on which to hang a counter-argument. We have a different
set of senses in dream-life, have we not? We feel, talk, hear,
see, taste and function in general on a different plane; the
change of state of our consciousness being evidenced by the fact
that a series of acts and events embracing years, as we think,
pass ideally through our mind in one instant. Well, that extreme
rapidity of our mental operations in dreams, and the perfect
naturalness, for the time being, of all the other functions, show
us that we are on quite another plane. Our philosophy teaches
us that, as there are seven fundamental forces in nature, and
seven planes of being, so there are seven states of consciousness
in which man can live, think, remember and have his being. To
enumerate these here is impossible, and for this one has to turn
to the study of Eastern metaphysics. But in these two states—the
waking and the dreaming—every ordinary mortal, from a learned
philosopher down to a poor untutored savage, has a good proof that
such states differ.

ENQ. You do not accept, then, the well-known explanations of biology
and physiology to account for the dream state?

THEO. We do not. We reject even the hypotheses of your psychologists,
preferring the teachings of Eastern Wisdom. Believing in seven
planes of Kosmic being and states of Consciousness, with regard
to the Universe or the Macrocosm, we stop at the fourth plane,
finding it impossible to go with any degree of certainty beyond.
But with respect to the Microcosm, or man, we speculate freely on
his seven states and principles.

ENQ. How do you explain these?

THEO. We find, first of all, two distinct beings in man; the spiritual
and the physical, the man who thinks, and the man who records as
much of these thoughts as he is able to assimilate. Therefore we
divide him into two distinct natures; the upper or the spiritual
being, composed of three “principles” or _aspects_; and the lower
or the physical quaternary, composed of _four_—in all _seven_.


THE SEPTENARY NATURE OF MAN.

ENQ. Is it what we call Spirit and Soul, and the man of flesh?

THEO. It is not. That is the old Platonic division. Plato was an
Initiate, and therefore could not go into forbidden details; but
he who is acquainted with the archaic doctrine finds the seven
in Plato’s various combinations of Soul and Spirit. He regarded
man as constituted of two parts—one eternal, formed of the same
essence as the Absoluteness, the other mortal and corruptible,
deriving its constituent parts from the _minor_ “created” Gods.
Man is composed, he shows, of (1) A mortal body, (2) An immortal
principle, and (3) A “separate mortal kind of Soul.” It is that
which we respectively call the physical man, the Spiritual Soul
or Spirit, and the animal Soul (the _Nous_ and _psuche_). This
is the division adopted by Paul, another Initiate, who maintains
that there is a psychical body which is sown in the corruptible
(astral soul or body), and a _spiritual_ body that is raised in
incorruptible substance. Even James (iii. 15) corroborates the
same by saying that the “wisdom” (of our lower soul) descendeth
not from the above, but is terrestrial (“psychical,” “demoniacal,”
_vide_ Greek text); while the other is heavenly wisdom. Now so
plain is it that Plato and even Pythagoras, while speaking but of
three “principles,” give them seven separate functions, in their
various combinations, that if we contrast our teachings this will
become quite plain. Let us take a cursory view of these seven
aspects by drawing two tables.


THEOSOPHICAL DIVISION.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
{ SANSCRIT TERMS. | EXOTERIC MEANING.| EXPLANATORY.
{------------------------------------------------------------------
L { | |
o {(_a_) Rupa, or |(_a_) Physical |(_a_) Is the vehicle of
w { Sthula-Sarira. | body. | all the other
e { | | “principles” during
r { | | life.
{(_b_) Pranâ. |(_b_) Life, or |(_b_) Necessary only to
{ | Vital principle.| _a_, _c_, _d_, and
Q { | | the functions of the
u { | | lower _Manas_, which
a { | | embrace all those
t { | | limited to the
e { | | (_physical_) brain.
r {(_c_) Linga Sharira.|(_c_) Astral Body.|(_c_) The _Double_, the
n { | | phantom body.
a {(_d_) Kama rupa. |(_d_) The seat of |(_d_) This is the centre
r { | animal desires| of the animal man,
y { | and passions. | wherelies the line
. { | | of demarcation which
{ | | separates the mortal
{ | | man from the
{ | | immortal entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
{ | |
{ SANSCRIT TERMS. | EXOTERIC MEANING. | EXPLANATORY.
{ | |
T {-------------------------------------------------------------------
H {(_e_) _Manas_—a |(_e_) Mind, Intelligence:|(_e_) The future state
E { dual principle| which is the higher | and the Karmic
{ in its | human mind, whose | destiny of man
U { functions. | light, or radiation, | depend on whether
P { | links the MONAD, for | Manas gravitates
P { | the lifetime, to the | more downward to
E { | mortal man. | Kama rupa, the
R { | | seat of the animal
{ | | passions, or
I { | | upwards to_Buddhi_,
M { | | Spiritual _Ego_. In
P { | | the latter case,
E { | | the higher
R { | | consciousness of
I { | | the individual
S { | | Spiritual
H { | | aspirations of
A { | | _mind_ (Manas),
B { | | assimilating
L { | | Buddhi, are
E { | | absorbed by it
{ | | and form the _Ego_,
T { | | which goes into
R { | | Devachanic bliss.[19]
I {(_f_) Buddhi. |(_f_) The Spiritual |(_f_) The vehicle of
A { | Soul. | pure universal
D { | | spirit.
. {(_g_) Atma. |(_g_) Spirit. |(_g_) One with the
{ | | Absolute, as its
{ | | radiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now what does Plato teach? He speaks of the _interior_ man as
constituted of two parts—one immutable and always the same,
formed of the same _substance_ as Deity, and the other mortal and
corruptible. These “two parts” are found in our upper _Triad_,
and the lower _Quaternary_ (_vide_ Table). He explains that when
the Soul, _psuche_, “allies herself to the Nous (divine spirit
or substance[20]), she does everything aright and felicitously”;
but the case is otherwise when she attaches herself to _Anoia_,
(folly, or the irrational animal Soul). Here, then, we have
_Manas_ (or the Soul in general) in its two aspects: when
attaching itself to _Anoia_ (our _Kama rupa_, or the “Animal Soul”
in “Esoteric Buddhism,”) it runs towards entire annihilation, as
far as the personal Ego is concerned; when allying itself to the
_Nous_ (Atma-Buddhi) it merges into the immortal, imperishable
Ego, and then its spiritual consciousness of the personal that
_was_, becomes immortal.


THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOUL AND SPIRIT.

ENQ. Do you really teach, as you are accused of doing by some
Spiritualists and French Spiritists, the annihilation of every
personality?

THEO. We do not. But as this question of the duality—the
_individuality_ of the Divine Ego, and the _personality_ of the
human animal—involves that of the possibility of the real immortal
Ego appearing in _Séance rooms_ as a “materialised spirit,” which
we deny as already explained, our opponents have started the
nonsensical charge.

ENQ. You have just spoken of _psuche_ running towards its entire
annihilation if it attaches itself to _Anoia_. What did Plato, and
do you mean by this?

THEO. The _entire_ annihilation of the _personal_ consciousness, as an
exceptional and rare case, I think. The general and almost
invariable rule is the merging of the personal into the individual
or immortal consciousness of the Ego, a transformation or a divine
transfiguration, and the entire annihilation only of the lower
_quaternary_. Would you expect the man of flesh, or the _temporary
personality_, his shadow, the “astral,” his animal instincts
and even physical life, to survive with the “spiritual Ego” and
become sempiternal? Naturally all this ceases to exist, either
at, or soon after corporeal death. It becomes in time entirely
disintegrated and disappears from view, being annihilated as a
whole.

ENQ. Then you also reject _resurrection in the flesh_?

THEO. Most decidedly we do! Why should we, who believe in the archaic
esoteric philosophy of the Ancients, accept the unphilosophical
speculations of the later Christian theology, borrowed from the
Egyptian and Greek exoteric Systems of the Gnostics?

ENQ. The Egyptians revered Nature-Spirits, and deified even onions:
your Hindus are _idolaters_, to this day; the Zoroastrians
worshipped, and do still worship, the Sun; and the best Greek
philosophers were either dreamers or materialists—witness Plato
and Democritus. How can you compare?

THEO. It may be so in your modern Christian and even Scientific
catechism; it is not so for unbiased minds. The Egyptians
revered the “One-Only-One,” as _Nout_; and it is from this word
that Anaxagoras got his denomination _Nous_, or as he calls it,
Νους αυτοχρατης, “the Mind or Spirit Self-Potent,” the αρχητης
χινηδεως, the leading motor, or _primum-mobile_ of all. With
him the _Nous_ was God, and the _logos_ was man, his emanation.
The _Nous_ is the spirit (whether in Kosmos or in man), and the
_logos_, whether Universe or astral body, the emanation of the
former, the physical body being merely the animal. Our external
powers perceive _phenomena_; our _Nous_ alone is able to recognise
their _noumena_. It is the logos alone, or the _noumenon_, that
survives, because it is immortal in its very nature and essence,
and the _logos_ in man is the Eternal Ego, that which reincarnates
and lasts for ever. But how can the evanescent or external shadow,
the temporary clothing of that divine Emanation which returns
to the source whence it proceeded, be that _which is raised in
incorruptibility_?

ENQ. Still you can hardly escape the charge of having invented a new
division of man’s spiritual and psychic constituents; for no
philosopher speaks of them, though you believe that Plato does.

THEO. And I support the view. Besides Plato, there is Pythagoras, who
also followed the same idea.[21] He described the _Soul_ as a
self-moving Unit (_monad_) composed of three elements, the _Nous_
(Spirit), the _phren_ (mind), and the _thumos_ (life, breath or
the _Nephesh_ of the Kabalists) which three correspond to our
“Atma-Buddhi,” (higher Spirit-Soul), to _Manas_ (The EGO), and
to _Kama-rupa_ in conjunction with the _lower_ reflection of
Manas. That which the Ancient Greek philosophers termed _Soul_,
in general, we call Spirit, or Spiritual _Soul_, _Buddhi_, as the
vehicle of _Atma_ (the _Agathon_, or Plato’s Supreme Deity). The
fact that Pythagoras and others state that _phren_ and _thumos_
are shared by us with the brutes, proves that in this case the
_lower_ Manasic reflection (instinct) and _Kama-rupa_ (animal
living passions) are meant. And as Socrates and Plato accepted
the clue and followed it, if to these five, namely, _Agathon_
(Deity or Atma), _Psuche_ (Soul in its collective sense), _Nous_
(Spirit or Mind), _Phren_ (physical mind), and _Thumos_ (Kama-rupa
or passions) we add the _eidolon_ of the Mysteries, the shadowy
_form_ or the human double, and the _physical body_, it will be
easy to demonstrate that the ideas of both Pythagoras and Plato
were identical with ours. Even the Egyptians held to the Septenary
division. In its exit, they taught, the Soul (EGO) had to pass
through its seven chambers, or principles, those it left behind,
and those it took along with itself. The only difference is that,
ever bearing in mind the penalty of revealing Mystery-doctrines,
which was _death_, they gave out the teaching in a broad outline,
while we elaborate it and explain it in its details. But though
we do give out to the world as much as is lawful, even in our
doctrine more than one important detail is withheld, which those
who study the esoteric philosophy and are pledged to silence, _are
alone entitled to know_.


THE GREEK TEACHINGS.

ENQ. We have magnificent Greek and Latin, Sanskrit and Hebrew scholars.
How is it that we find nothing in their translations that would
afford us a clue to what you say?

THEO. Because your translators, their great learning notwithstanding,
have made of the philosophers, the Greeks especially, _misty_
instead of mystic writers. Take as an instance Plutarch, and read
what he says of “the principles” of man. That which he describes
was accepted literally and attributed to metaphysical superstition
and ignorance. Let me give you an illustration in point: “Man,”
says Plutarch, “is compound; and they are _mistaken who think him
to be compounded of two parts only_. For they imagine that the
understanding (brain intellect) is a part of the soul (the upper
Triad), but they err in this no less than those who make the soul
to be a part of the body, _i.e._, those who make of the _Triad_
part of the corruptible mortal _quaternary_. For the understanding
(nous) as far exceeds the soul, as the soul is better and diviner
than the body. Now this composition of the soul (ψυχη) with the
understanding (νοῦς) makes reason; and with the body (or thumos,
the animal soul) passion; of which the one is the beginning or
principle of pleasure and pain, and the other of virtue and
vice. Of these three parts conjoined and compacted together, the
earth has given the body, the moon the soul, and the sun the
understanding to the generation of man.”

This last sentence is purely allegorical, and will be comprehended
only by those who are versed in the esoteric science of
correspondences and know which planet is _related to every
principle_. Plutarch divides the latter into three groups, and
makes of the body a compound of physical frame, astral shadow,
and breath, or the triple lower part, which “from earth was
taken and to earth returns”; of the middle principle and the
instinctual soul, the second part, derived _from_ and _through_
and ever influenced by the moon[22]; and only of the higher part
or the _Spiritual Soul_, with the Atmic and Manasic elements in
it does he make a direct emanation of the Sun, who stands here
for _Agathon_ the Supreme Deity. This is proven by what he says
further as follows:

“Now of the deaths we die, the one makes man two of three and
the other one of (out of) two. The former is in the region
and jurisdiction of Demeter, whence the name given to the
Mysteries, τελειν, resembled that given to death, τελευταν.
The Athenians also heretofore called the deceased sacred to
Demeter. As for the other death, it is in the moon or region of
Persephone.”

Here you have our doctrine, which shows man a _septenary_ during
life; a _quintile_ just after death, in Kama-loka; and a threefold
_Ego_, Spirit-Soul, and consciousness in _Devachan_. This
separation, first in “the Meadows of Hades,” as Plutarch calls
the _Kama-loka_, then in Devachan, was part and parcel of the
performances during the sacred Mysteries, when the candidates for
initiation enacted the whole drama of death, and the resurrection
as a glorified spirit, by which name we mean _Consciousness_. This
is what Plutarch means when he says:—

“And as with the one, the terrestrial, so with the other
celestial Hermes doth dwell. This suddenly and with violence
plucks the soul from the body; but Proserpina mildly and in a
long time disjoins the understanding from the soul.[23] For
this reason she is called _Monogenes, only begotten_, or rather
_begetting one alone_; for _the better part of man becomes
alone when it is separated by her_. Now both the one and the
other happens thus according to nature. It is ordained by Fate
(Fatum or Karma) that every soul, whether with or without
understanding (mind), when gone out of the body, should wander
for a time, though not all for the same, in the region lying
between the earth and moon (_Kama-loka_).[24] For those that
have been unjust and dissolute suffer then the punishment due
to their offences; but the good and virtuous are there detained
till they are purified, and have, by expiation, purged out of
them all the infections they might have contracted from the
contagion of the body, as if from foul health, living in the
mildest part of the air, called the Meadows of Hades, where
they must remain for a certain prefixed and appointed time. And
then, as if they were returning from a wandering pilgrimage
or long exile into their country, they have a taste of joy,
such as they principally receive who are initiated into Sacred
Mysteries, mixed with trouble, admiration, and each one’s
proper and peculiar hope.”

This is Nirvanic bliss, and no Theosophist could describe in
plainer though esoteric language the mental joys of Devachan,
where every man has his paradise around him, erected by his
consciousness. But you must beware of the general error into
which too many even of our Theosophists fall. Do not imagine that
because man is called septenary, then _quintuple_ and a triad, he
is a compound of seven, five, or three _entities_; or, as well
expressed by a Theosophical writer, of skins to be peeled off like
the skins of an onion. The “principles,” as already said, save the
body, the life, and the astral _eidolon_, all of which disperse
at death, are simply _aspects_ and _states of consciousness_.
There is but one _real_ man, enduring through the cycle of life
and immortal in essence, if not in form, and this is _Manas_, the
Mind-man or embodied Consciousness. The objection made by the
materialists, who deny the possibility of mind and consciousness
acting without matter is worthless in our case. We do not deny
the soundness of their argument; but we simply ask our opponents,
“Are you acquainted _with all the states of matter_, you who knew
hitherto but of three? And how do you know whether that which we
refer to as ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS or Deity for ever invisible
and unknowable, be not that which, though it eludes for ever our
human _finite_ conception, is still universal Spirit-matter or
matter-Spirit _in its absolute infinitude_?” It is then one of the
lowest, and in its manvantaric manifestations _fractioned_-aspects
of this Spirit-matter, which is the conscious _Ego_ that creates
its own paradise, a fool’s paradise, it may be, still a state of
bliss.

ENQ. But what is _Devachan_?

THEO. The “land of gods” literally; a condition, a state of mental
bliss. Philosophically a mental condition analogous to, but far
more vivid and real than, the most vivid dream. It is the state
after death of most mortals.

FOOTNOTES:

[19] In Mr. Sinnett’s “Esoteric Buddhism” _d_, _e_, and _f_, are
respectively called the Animal, the Human, and the Spiritual Souls,
which answers as well. Though the principles in _Esoteric Buddhism_ are
numbered, this is, strictly speaking, useless. The dual _Monad_ alone
(_Atma-Buddhi_) is susceptible of being thought of as the two highest
numbers (the 6th and 7th). As to all others, since _that_ “principle”
only which is predominant in man has to be considered as the first and
foremost, no numeration is possible as a general rule. In some men it
is the higher Intelligence (Manas or the 5th) which dominates the rest;
in others the Animal Soul (Kama-rupa) that reigns supreme, exhibiting
the most bestial instincts, etc.

[20] Paul calls Plato’s _Nous_ “Spirit”; but as this spirit is
“substance,” then, of course, _Buddhi_ and not _Atma_ is meant, as
the latter cannot philosophically be called “substance” under any
circumstance. We include Atma among the human “principles” in order not
to create additional confusion. In reality it is no “human” but the
universal _absolute_ principle of which Buddhi, the Soul-Spirit, is the
carrier.

[21] “Plato and Pythagoras,” says Plutarch, “distribute the soul into
two parts, the rational (noetic) and irrational (agnoia); that that
part of the soul of man which is rational is eternal; for though it
be not God, yet it is the product of an eternal deity, but that part
of the soul which is divested of reason (agnoia) dies.” The modern
term _Agnostic_ comes from _Agnosis_, a cognate word. We wonder why
Mr. Huxley, the author of the word, should have connected his great
intellect with “the soul divested of reason” which dies? Is it the
exaggerated humility of the modern materialist?

[22] The Kabalists who know the relation of Jehovah, the life and
children-giver, to the Moon, and the influence of the latter on
generation, will again see the point as much as some astrologers will.

[23] Proserpina, or Persephone, stands here for post mortem Karma,
which is said to regulate the separation of the lower from the higher
“principles”: the _Soul_, as _Nephesh_, the breath of animal life,
which remains for a time in Kama-loka, from the higher compound _Ego_,
which goes into the state of Devachan, or bliss.

[24] Until the separation of the higher, spiritual “principle” takes
place from the lower ones, which remain in the Kama-loka until
disintegrated.