Jump to content

Blavatsky H.P. - Erroneous Ideas concerning the Doctrines of the Theosophists: Difference between revisions

Blavatsky H.P. - Erroneous Ideas concerning the Doctrines of the Theosophists (view source)

Revision as of 10:22, 18 September 2025

1 byte removed ,  18 September 2025
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
Line 39: Line 39:
Plato is quoted to us and, at the same time, what Plato taught is forgotten. According to the “divine” philosopher the soul is dual; it is composed of two primitive constituent parts: one—mortal, the other eternal; the former, fashioned by the ''created gods'' (the creative and intelligent forces in nature), the other, an emanation from the supreme Spirit. He tells us that the mortal soul, in taking possession of its body, becomes “irrational”; but between irrationality and unconsciousness there is a profound difference. Plato, finally, never confused the périsprit with the soul or the spirit. In common with every other philosopher, he called it neither the nous nor <big>Ψυχή</big>, but gave it the name <big>εἴδωλογ</big>, sometimes that of ''imago'' or ''simulacrum''.
Plato is quoted to us and, at the same time, what Plato taught is forgotten. According to the “divine” philosopher the soul is dual; it is composed of two primitive constituent parts: one—mortal, the other eternal; the former, fashioned by the ''created gods'' (the creative and intelligent forces in nature), the other, an emanation from the supreme Spirit. He tells us that the mortal soul, in taking possession of its body, becomes “irrational”; but between irrationality and unconsciousness there is a profound difference. Plato, finally, never confused the périsprit with the soul or the spirit. In common with every other philosopher, he called it neither the nous nor <big>Ψυχή</big>, but gave it the name <big>εἴδωλογ</big>, sometimes that of ''imago'' or ''simulacrum''.


Let us try, then, to re-establish a little order in this confusion. Let us give everything its true name, and state precisely the difference between the opinions of our learned critic and our own. For all who have studied the Greek philosophers, it is clear that the author confuses terms. His question (p. 292), “Can the separation of the spirit, <big>Ψυχή</big>, from the soul, ''nous'' or périsprit, ever be the cause of a complete destruction . . .?” provides us with the key {{Page aside|17}} to the misunderstanding. He translates the words “spirit” and “soul” simply ''vice versa''.
Let us try, then, to re-establish a little order in this confusion. Let us give everything its true name, and state precisely the difference between the opinions of our learned critic and our own. For all who have studied the Greek philosophers, it is clear that the author confuses terms. His question (p. 292), “Can the separation of the spirit, <big>Ψυχή</big>, from the soul, ''nous'' or périsprit, ever be the cause of a complete destruction . . .?” provides us with the key {{Page aside|17}}to the misunderstanding. He translates the words “spirit” and “soul” simply ''vice versa''.


We do not know if the modern Greeks so translate those two nouns, but we are able to prove that none of the ancient philosophers have ever defined them in that way. We will allow ourselves to quote two names, but those will suffice. Our pagan authority is—Plutarch; our Christian authority is no more and no less than Saint James, “the brother of the Lord.” In treating of the soul Plutarch tells us that while <big>Ψυχή</big> is imprisoned in the body, the ''nous'' or the divine intelligence soars above mortal man, shedding upon him a ray that is more or less luminous according to the personal merit of the man; he adds that the ''nous'' never descends but remains stationary. Saint James is still more explicit. Speaking of the wisdom from below (''vide'' the Greek text, ''General Epistle'', iii, 15) he treats it as “terrestrial, sensual, ''psychic'',” this last adjective being translated in the English text by the word “diabolical,” and (iii, 17) he adds that it is only the wisdom from above that is divine and “''noetic''” (adj. of the sub. ''nous'').<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[This sentence and explanation are somewhat confused. King James’ version gives the following text for chapter iii, verse 15: “This wisdom descendeth not from above, but ''is'' earthly, sensual, devilish.” The Greek text shows the words: ''epigeios, psychikê'', and ''daimoniôdês'', which are translated as “earthly, soulical, demoniacal” in a literal translation of the Greek text.—''Compiler''.]}}</ref> So the psychic element never seems to have been in the odor of sanctity, either with the Saints of Christianity or with the Philosophers of Paganism. Since Saint James treats <big>Ψυχή</big> as diabolical and Plato makes something irrational of it, can it be immortal ''per se''?
We do not know if the modern Greeks so translate those two nouns, but we are able to prove that none of the ancient philosophers have ever defined them in that way. We will allow ourselves to quote two names, but those will suffice. Our pagan authority is—Plutarch; our Christian authority is no more and no less than Saint James, “the brother of the Lord.” In treating of the soul Plutarch tells us that while <big>Ψυχή</big> is imprisoned in the body, the ''nous'' or the divine intelligence soars above mortal man, shedding upon him a ray that is more or less luminous according to the personal merit of the man; he adds that the ''nous'' never descends but remains stationary. Saint James is still more explicit. Speaking of the wisdom from below (''vide'' the Greek text, ''General Epistle'', iii, 15) he treats it as “terrestrial, sensual, ''psychic'',” this last adjective being translated in the English text by the word “diabolical,” and (iii, 17) he adds that it is only the wisdom from above that is divine and “''noetic''” (adj. of the sub. ''nous'').<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[This sentence and explanation are somewhat confused. King James’ version gives the following text for chapter iii, verse 15: “This wisdom descendeth not from above, but ''is'' earthly, sensual, devilish.” The Greek text shows the words: ''epigeios, psychikê'', and ''daimoniôdês'', which are translated as “earthly, soulical, demoniacal” in a literal translation of the Greek text.—''Compiler''.]}}</ref> So the psychic element never seems to have been in the odor of sanctity, either with the Saints of Christianity or with the Philosophers of Paganism. Since Saint James treats <big>Ψυχή</big> as diabolical and Plato makes something irrational of it, can it be immortal ''per se''?
Line 47: Line 47:
Does that mean that the individuality is lost in that absorption? Not at all. But between the human ''Ego'' and the wholly divine ''Ego'', there is an abyss that our critics fill in without knowing it. As to the périsprit, it is no more the soul than the delicate skin that surrounds the almond is the kernel itself or even its temporary husk. The périsprit is but the simulacrum of the man.
Does that mean that the individuality is lost in that absorption? Not at all. But between the human ''Ego'' and the wholly divine ''Ego'', there is an abyss that our critics fill in without knowing it. As to the périsprit, it is no more the soul than the delicate skin that surrounds the almond is the kernel itself or even its temporary husk. The périsprit is but the simulacrum of the man.


It follows that Theosophists understand the hypostasis, according to the old philosophers, in a very different way from the Spiritualists. For us, the Spirit is the ''personal'' god of each mortal, and his only divine element. The dual soul, on the contrary, is only semidivine. Being a direct emanation from the ''nous'', everything it has of immortal essence, once its earthly cycle is accomplished, must necessarily return to its mother-source, and as pure as when it was detached; it is that purely spiritual essence which the primitive church, as faithful as it was rebellious to the Neo-Platonic traditions, thought it recognized in the good ''daïmon'' and made into a guardian angel; at the same time justly blighting the “irrational” and fallible soul, the real human ''Ego'' (from which we get the word Egoism), she called it the angel of darkness, and afterwards made it into a personal devil. The only error was in anthropomorphizing it and in making it a monster with tail and horns. Otherwise, abstraction as it may be, this devil is truly personal because it is identical with our ''Ego''. It is this, the elusive and inaccessible personality, that ascetics of every country think they chastise by mortifying the flesh. The ''Ego'' then, to which we concede only a conditional immortality, is the purely human individuality. Half vital {{Page aside|19}} energy, half an aggregation of personal qualities and attributes, necessary to the constitution of every human being as distinct from his neighbor, the ''Ego'' is only the “breath of life” that Jehovah, one of the ''Elohim'' or creative gods, breathed into the nostrils of Adam; and, as such, and apart from its higher intelligence, it is but the element of individuality possessed by man in common with every creature, from the gnat that dances in the rays of the sun to the elephant, the king of the forest. It is only by identifying itself with that divine intelligence that the ''Ego'', soiled with earthly impurities, can win its immortality.
It follows that Theosophists understand the hypostasis, according to the old philosophers, in a very different way from the Spiritualists. For us, the Spirit is the ''personal'' god of each mortal, and his only divine element. The dual soul, on the contrary, is only semidivine. Being a direct emanation from the ''nous'', everything it has of immortal essence, once its earthly cycle is accomplished, must necessarily return to its mother-source, and as pure as when it was detached; it is that purely spiritual essence which the primitive church, as faithful as it was rebellious to the Neo-Platonic traditions, thought it recognized in the good ''daïmon'' and made into a guardian angel; at the same time justly blighting the “irrational” and fallible soul, the real human ''Ego'' (from which we get the word Egoism), she called it the angel of darkness, and afterwards made it into a personal devil. The only error was in anthropomorphizing it and in making it a monster with tail and horns. Otherwise, abstraction as it may be, this devil is truly personal because it is identical with our ''Ego''. It is this, the elusive and inaccessible personality, that ascetics of every country think they chastise by mortifying the flesh. The ''Ego'' then, to which we concede only a conditional immortality, is the purely human individuality. Half vital {{Page aside|19}}energy, half an aggregation of personal qualities and attributes, necessary to the constitution of every human being as distinct from his neighbor, the ''Ego'' is only the “breath of life” that Jehovah, one of the ''Elohim'' or creative gods, breathed into the nostrils of Adam; and, as such, and apart from its higher intelligence, it is but the element of individuality possessed by man in common with every creature, from the gnat that dances in the rays of the sun to the elephant, the king of the forest. It is only by identifying itself with that divine intelligence that the ''Ego'', soiled with earthly impurities, can win its immortality.


In order to express our thought more clearly, we will proceed by a question. Though matter may be quite indestructible in its primitive atoms—indestructible, because, as we say, it is the eternal shadow of the eternal Light and co-exists with it—can this matter remain unchangeable in its temporary forms or correlations? Do we not see it, during its ceaseless modifications, destroy today what it created yesterday? Every form, whether it belongs to the objective world or to that which our intelligence alone can perceive, having had a beginning, must have an end. There was a time when it did not exist; there will come a day when it will cease to be. Now, modern science tells us that even our thought is material. However fleeting an idea may be, its conception and its subsequent evolutions require a certain consumption of energy; let the least cerebral motion reverberate in the ether of space and it will produce a disturbance reaching to infinity. Hence, it is a material force, although invisible.
In order to express our thought more clearly, we will proceed by a question. Though matter may be quite indestructible in its primitive atoms—indestructible, because, as we say, it is the eternal shadow of the eternal Light and co-exists with it—can this matter remain unchangeable in its temporary forms or correlations? Do we not see it, during its ceaseless modifications, destroy today what it created yesterday? Every form, whether it belongs to the objective world or to that which our intelligence alone can perceive, having had a beginning, must have an end. There was a time when it did not exist; there will come a day when it will cease to be. Now, modern science tells us that even our thought is material. However fleeting an idea may be, its conception and its subsequent evolutions require a certain consumption of energy; let the least cerebral motion reverberate in the ether of space and it will produce a disturbance reaching to infinity. Hence, it is a material force, although invisible.
Line 68: Line 68:


If our teachings interest the reader we will try to be more explicit in a future number.
If our teachings interest the reader we will try to be more explicit in a future number.
{{Style P-Signature in capitals|H. P. Blavatsky}}
{{Style P-Signature in capitals|H. P. Blavatsky}}


{{Footnotes}}
{{Footnotes}}
Retrieved from "https://en.teopedia.org/lib/Special:MobileDiff/30735"