A comment on
reincarnation in the context of
Divine Nature vs. Human nature, and where/how these two natures intersect ... if from a Theosophical or
esoteric Christian viewpoint:
I would provide a
link to a chart, posted here by Nick the Pilot, on the
What is Theosophy thread. In the simpler of the two charts (thanks, Nick, mine has too many details!) ... Bishop Leadbeater considers our
Divine Nature to be
so much more important, relative to our human, that he has left out the direct correspondences entirely!
(see much further below, and my quote from John)
If you look, you'll see that he shows a correspondence between the
Threefold Nature of the Parent (or Transcendent) Trinity ... as
reflecting itself into the
Spiritual Triad of an individual human being. The former, Leadbeater calls the
Triple Manifestation of the Logos, and even in terms of Theosophical or esoteric teachings it is
altogether beyond the range or ken of
humanity's spiritual evolution.
I believe that this corresponds to, or makes allowance for, anyone's
insistence, inkling, or `gut feeling' (however firmly we wish to base our viewpoint on convention, tradition and doctrine) ... that humanity is not
, in & of itself, unconditionally or without caveat `Divine.' Thomas, I'm thinking in terms which
accommodate your own expressed beliefs - and presentation of Catholic theology - yet also with regard to a more conservative, or
even more traditional, background.
Again, I know charts are just two-dimensional sketches, and sometimes I wince at them, nowadays, when I think what I've been through in my journey of
incorporating (sic!) into my life the truths which they are supposed to represent ... but still, relative to the wonderful dialogue and exchange which I've been following between you two (wil and Thomas), I thought this
2-D chart might help clarify.
I would have to say that,
of course, many a Buddhist -
including Vajradhara, no doubt - would regard the Theosophical teaching as erroneous, since Shakyamuni is supposed to have
denied a reincarnating Individuality,
by whatever name we wish to regard to it. Yet I would humbly submit that this teaching (the Theosophical, or esoteric), makes
every allowance for the emphasis that the Buddha was trying to make, and the
errors of interpretation which he was making sure to avoid. Further explanation might require volumes (and qualifications
I do not have), but if I can at all shorten my posts -
or punctuate them by minimizing topics - I'd really rather do so!
Thus, if you've seen the chart Nick posted, also scroll up to notice my chart from Alice Bailey's writings, and notice the similarity, yet also the
yellow triangle which Bailey provides as representative - on the plane of
Higher Mind - of `the spiritual Ego,' or
Soul (Atma, Buddhia, Manas).
Leadbeater does not represent it specifically, or via symbol, yet he does spell out
`The Causal Body' on the chart which Nick uploaded. And in both Theosophical and other esoteric teachings, such as in FreeMasonry, the symbolic term often used for this
vehicle of consciousness is
`The Temple of Solomon.' Other terms include
Karana Sarira, karanatman, and
karanopadhi ... and so forth.
One meaning provided, then, for Christ's utterance in
Matthew 6:19-21, is that the
Causal Body, or
Temple of Solomon (symbolically, allegorically) is being referenced. According to the charts provided, and esoteric teachings, our
physical body, our
emotional (astral) body, and even our
mental (mind) body are temporal, mortal, and ultimately
emphemeral ... in the sense that they are composed primarily of a
rupa - or form-nature, and only
partially infused, or
ensouled by
Spirit, Life, or a Consciousness-Nature.
So when, as a Theosophist or esotericist, even a
Liberal or Esoteric Christian, I myself - or many others - speak of a
Divine Nature, inherent in man [Humanity] ... it is by no means that I am suggesting something out of line with the
ancient, traditional and esoteric teachings on this subject, as presented within the Mystery Traditions.
I think we will find that, experientially, no matter what we do, we will do well to
check ourself (and our beliefs, and whatever doctrines we've come to embrace) by Christ's own words, in
John 14:10:Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?
the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself:
but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
So here is Jesus,
Christed Jesus even, seeking to direct our attention and focus
away from outward appearances, and even away from
his own Person, or personality ... and
toward something (or Some`ONE') else "entirely" (I qualify this word, but I think Jesus was gently scolding Philip, and reminding His disicples, when he uttered the above). Why?
Why else, if not to
remind them, that even the
Son of God, the Christed MAN, elsewhere said to have been
at-one'd with
OUR Father, was not yet
the "Whole" Man, or the
Whole Manifestation of Godhood/Godhead!
So much for
"fully human, fully Divine!"
The
Divine Aspects of an individual human being, as presented by Theosophists, and esotericists of all different schools and flavors, include
Atma (our link, or connection with
"Pure" Spirit),
Buddhi (which is our Unity, or Oneness, with the
Unary Spiritual Soul of all of Humanity) and
Manas (which is more or less the
Individual, Reincarnating Ego, or Soul, of a human being).
The confusion will enter in, if I may be so bold, when we make the
cognitive, metaphysical, ontological, theological or otherwise
interpretative mistake -
in our own understanding - of taking this
Reincarnating, Individual SOUL (`Ego') to be ME, Myself, and `I.'
The confusion is quite the same, in terms of our deeper consciousness, as might arise if - understandably - we looked at the
Theosophists' use of this word
`Ego,' and, forgetting its simple reference to the
`I am' consciousness, assume that it means the same as the
ego concept from modern psychology. To be fair, the term was present, and pervasive, in Theosopical usage, long before it had become so popular and emphasized by the Freudian school ... in modern psychology.
So, naturally enough -
and here is where, among other places, the Buddhist contribution truly shines - if we pretend, or believe, even for a moment, that it is the
psychological ego which is the "real man," which survives bodily death, and either
enters a permanent heaven, or returns to reincarnation (depending on our religious standpoint) ... then indeed,
we have missed the proverbial boat entirely.
Temporary ego dissolution - and
transcendence, whether brought about ("aided," or
caused) by psychoactive substances, or facilitated by
spiritual, meditative or other disciplinary practices ... does not require physical death at all -
or even, I would submit, spiritual or religious belief(s), as when drug-induced by an agnostic/atheist.
I think it behooves us to ask
what it is which the Mystic has been experiencing all this time, when
s/he goes beyond the ego of psychology, and enters into
a life-changing, if temporary, state of union, bliss and `Oneness' with God, the Soul, and even `the Totality of Being,' as some mystics have put it.
If I wanted to make
only one point in this entire post, it would be
to say I believe there is a Divine Aspect (err, all THREE, actually) present, or
latent, within
every Human being ... and that this does not contradict the teachings of Christianity, even if it
may not jibe with a more rigid, strict application of
Catholic doctrines, or of some of the
more conservative aspects of a Fundamental Christianity, as presented and being discussed on other threads here at CR.
And to borrow one of the oldest metaphors and beautific images associated with the
path of spiritual development, I would add that I believe our progress is
more than resemblant of the unfoldment of the Lotus Flower. The
inner, Spiritual bud is at first altogether concealed
, then it is gradually - very gradually - revealed, as the surrounding petals open in due & proper order, over a period of several earthly lives which culminate our chain of human rebirths.
On the one hand, we could show that these petals are the
spiritual upadhi, or
basis for the
incarnate human consciousness, and have a direct correspondence with the
cardinal Virtues that it is the duty, or
Dharma, of every incarnating jiva to
develop in its earthly sojourn. Or we could make reference to the inner, hidden
Jewel - the Spark of Life Itself,
`Our Father Who art in Heaven,' as Christ chose to speak of it ... and of the importance of returning to the Father's House whence we were originally
sent forth.
But at what point, if we acknowledge an
esoteric cosmology and chronology, will it become
convenient and/or
necessary to cease referring to
our original, Divinely-produced Spiritual Spark ... the Hidden LIFE which indwells all outer forms - as "Divine?" Where do we decide,
here there is `God,' and
here there is `no-god?' When does the
great heresy of separateness take over?
What I believe, and I have been called a
solipsist as well as a total
subjectivist or
relativist for it, is that indeed, there is
nothing here but God, such that ALL, Everything,
and Everyone around us (including
our own `self') - is a PART of the One Divine Expression. And if we feel we
must speak of an ultimate, Transcendent
`God,' Whom & which stands apart, and aloof, from
`His' Creation, then this is well, and good, if it helps us to
smile, and remember that
Life exists for a Purpose.
{earl, you gettin this?}
I mean this, because the more I explore a belief in monotheism, and consider what people are saying by the simple expression,
"I believe in God," the more I feel that we are
not so different, in terms of spiritual belief, after all. I just figure there is
nothing we can say or know about this
Transcendent Being, so I remain comfortable with the idea that
Cosmos is the Expression of said Being ... and
through Cosmos, we
can and eventually will come to Know, Experience and Return to ... the
very heart of `G-d.'
What is the relationship ... of
our Individual, reincarnating `Ego,' the human Soul ... to you, me, and every other human being,
as an earthly personality?
I think it is like this:
The radiant, beautiful, Shining One within, is seated quietly before a pool of water, which ever remains (for the Soul)
pure and calm, reflecting the
Image of the Inner Man in
pristine clarity of vision. In order to apprehend this vision, much less the true nature
(Divine!) of the Shining One within, we must learn to
look up, from the bottom of the pool, through the mud & murk of ordinary, everyday life - and trust that in time, the truth will be revealed to us.
Though the circumstances
do not change for our Soul,
the Being so described, the changing conditions of
outer life amost seem to conspire to
prevent us from coming to apprehend the true nature of the Self. The winds often blow furiously, and ruffle the calm surface of the water. The water becomes polluted -
almost impossible to prevent given current conditions of life in the world,
yet we do our utmost to match our earthly lives to the standards which the spiritual life requires. And as for the muck & murk of the bottom of the pool ...
the moist soil of human experience which presents a thousand temptations, and distractions, from
true contemplation of the Soul and other verities?
Well this speaks for itself ...
The Shining One will not,
because it cannot, simply stand up - and
dive into the pool of our outward, worldly consciousness, and reveal itself, saying,
"Here, I am (the) Divine!" We are called to overcome the obstacles -
placed in our path not to bar our progress, but to facilitate it and to draw out our fullest potential. In so doing, our entire
lower, mortal nature (see chart) becomes pure, clear, and spirtually receptive - eventually prepared for the
higher knowledge, which leads us on the Path, even becoming that Path Itself.
And
in the walking of said Path, I am convinced, of my own experience & finding, that
the Divine will reveal Itself to each and every one of us ... and this just brings
me back to the muck & the murk of the bottom of the pool - and a
longing, a renewed determination, to prepare my
own way ... since whether I speak as a Theosophist, a Christian, or otherwise,
I do not think Christ can or will come, until we have made a place for Him.
And this is true both individually, and collectively ...
(so much for brevity,
I'll have to tackle that, too, with renewed resolve!)
Namaskar,
andrew
