Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
17,091
edits
HPB-SB-14-94: Difference between revisions
незначительные правки
(незначительные правки) |
(незначительные правки) |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
No terror found; but grateful ease was there; | No terror found; but grateful ease was there; | ||
Delights surpassing all the joys of health, | Delights surpassing all the joys of health, | ||
When early o’er the hills of our | When early o’er the hills of our* lost home | ||
We gaily wandered, tasting all the sweets | We gaily wandered, tasting all the sweets | ||
Which that regretted happy place supplied. | Which that regretted happy place supplied. | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
{{Style P-Title|THE ASTRAL LIGHT AND THE OBJECTIVITY<br>OF THOUGHT.}} | {{Style P-Title|THE ASTRAL LIGHT AND THE OBJECTIVITY<br>OF THOUGHT.}} | ||
Some words in explanation of what I find stated in a possibly misleading manner in my last article. The spiritual Ego may seem to be there represented as the result of a process of religious conversion, and thus not essential to humanity as we know it. That is certainly not what I intended to convey. Man is man by virtue of this principle of consciousness, which is indeed the ''capacity'' of the highest spiritual attainment, but is ''manifest'' only in the recognition of an universal reason and will superior to the individual. It is, ''in fact'', this very universal come to individual consciousness, but the individual does not recognise it ''as such'' at first, but sees in it a law upon him, external to him, at variance with his own will. This is his conscience. And because it is the Absolute Reason in him also, it is his ''nous'', in the great Greek sense, which signifies so much more than the discursive, analytic faculty we moderns take for reason. What these teachings aim at shewing is that the Divine Spirit is not a mere adornment, so to speak, of an already immortal soul, but is itself the principle of that soul, which, by accretion or organic substantiation, becomes the basis of ''objective'' immortality. But personality, in any but an empty subjective sense, is not therefore likewise immortal. It is a phenomenal ''experience''. It depends on external conditions, and is the objectivity of the Ego under those conditions. The complex of the latter is what we call a world. The personality is a ''manifestation'' of the Ego in such a world, and thus itself phenomenal. Now relatively to spirit the Ego is itself objective and phenomenal; it may be said to be an organic mode of spirit. It is the consciousness of this mode, in and through personal experience. And at death, when the Ego enters the state of Devachan, or comparative subjectivity, its consciousness is the net result or ''income'' of this past experience. That is its Karma; and with a good Karma this state is “Heaven.” But since that is not Nirvana, ''i.e.'', perfect identification with the impersonal, universal consciousness of spirit, this does not last for ever, | Some words in explanation of what I find stated in a possibly misleading manner in my last article. The spiritual Ego may seem to be there represented as the result of a process of religious conversion, and thus not essential to humanity as we know it. That is certainly not what I intended to convey. Man is man by virtue of this principle of consciousness, which is indeed the ''capacity'' of the highest spiritual attainment, but is ''manifest'' only in the recognition of an universal reason and will superior to the individual. It is, ''in fact'', this very universal come to individual consciousness, but the individual does not recognise it ''as such'' at first, but sees in it a law upon him, external to him, at variance with his own will. This is his conscience. And because it is the Absolute Reason in him also, it is his ''nous'', in the great Greek sense, which signifies so much more than the discursive, analytic faculty we moderns take for reason. What these teachings aim at shewing is that the Divine Spirit is not a mere adornment, so to speak, of an already immortal soul, but is itself the principle of that soul, which, by accretion or organic substantiation, becomes the basis of ''objective'' immortality. But personality, in any but an empty subjective sense, is not therefore likewise immortal. It is a phenomenal ''experience''. It depends on external conditions, and is the objectivity of the Ego under those conditions. The complex of the latter is what we call a world. The personality is a ''manifestation'' of the Ego in such a world, and thus itself phenomenal. Now relatively to spirit the Ego is itself objective and phenomenal; it may be said to be an organic mode of spirit. It is the consciousness of this mode, in and through personal experience. And at death, when the Ego enters the state of Devachan, or comparative subjectivity, its consciousness is the net result or ''income'' of this past experience. That is its Karma; and with a good Karma this state is “Heaven.” But since that is not Nirvana, ''i.e.'', perfect identification with the impersonal, universal consciousness of spirit, this does not last for ever,* but there is re-manifestation, or re-birth into another objective world, or “world of causes,” where new Karma is generated. In the personal lives, there is no self-identification by the Ego, and for this reason. What took place in Devachan was the gradual ''indrawing'' of its past life experience till it ceased to be objective unconsciousness and became the subjective basis of another external life or personality. That is the ''character'' of the new person. Our character is thus the result of our former lives, the quintessential product of these, but to us, of course, is not an objective memory. It will become so, however, when we get ''behind'' our present character, that is, into the still more internal condition to which all past results are objective. And then, also, there will be an unfoldment of these results into their causes and elements, and the whole vast field of phenomenal experience will be displayed to our view. | ||
But to come to the proper subject of this article. To suppose that there is no objective world besides that which is manifest, or possibly manifest, to our present senses, can only arise from the latent, unconscious materialism which secretly thinks that after all there is something essential in “material” phenomena as we know them. That idealism gives to the elements of every objective world an explanation in accordance with its principles is pre-supposed; it requires that they should be recognised as phenomenal, but certainly not that they should be ignored. To infer philosophical ignorance from the use of phenomenal language in the description of phenomena is as unwarrantable as it would be to impute such ignorance to a scientific physicist who did not preface his lectures with allusions to Berkeley and Kant. Mr. Noel disclaims that position, yet he objects to speaking of the astral light, of Akasa, or ether, and of “pictures” therein, because every form of matter, and all its representations must be phenomena of consciousness. The Occultists don’t say this; so every “candid person” is to infer that they don’t know it. They ''do'' say it, by-the-by, Eliphas Levi speaking of the astral light as “cet être phénoménal,” and others sometimes describing it as the sensorium of the world soul. But why should they speak of a picture in the astral light as in consciousness, any more than a botanist should speak of a plant as in consciousness? This visible world is phenomenal and contains plants. The astral light or ether is no less phenomenal (though, indefinitely more vitalised, that is{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|14-95}} | But to come to the proper subject of this article. To suppose that there is no objective world besides that which is manifest, or possibly manifest, to our present senses, can only arise from the latent, unconscious materialism which secretly thinks that after all there is something essential in “material” phenomena as we know them. That idealism gives to the elements of every objective world an explanation in accordance with its principles is pre-supposed; it requires that they should be recognised as phenomenal, but certainly not that they should be ignored. To infer philosophical ignorance from the use of phenomenal language in the description of phenomena is as unwarrantable as it would be to impute such ignorance to a scientific physicist who did not preface his lectures with allusions to Berkeley and Kant. Mr. Noel disclaims that position, yet he objects to speaking of the astral light, of Akasa, or ether, and of “pictures” therein, because every form of matter, and all its representations must be phenomena of consciousness. The Occultists don’t say this; so every “candid person” is to infer that they don’t know it. They ''do'' say it, by-the-by, Eliphas Levi speaking of the astral light as “cet être phénoménal,” and others sometimes describing it as the sensorium of the world soul. But why should they speak of a picture in the astral light as in consciousness, any more than a botanist should speak of a plant as in consciousness? This visible world is phenomenal and contains plants. The astral light or ether is no less phenomenal (though, indefinitely more vitalised, that is{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|14-95}} | ||