It is evident, therefore, that the term “soul” is used in the Bailey literature in several widely different meanings. But which are they? And even if we could state them in a general sense, out of context, how can we know what is meant by “soul” in context, in each individual place throughout the Bailey books? As will be demonstrated below, this is no trifling problem but one that is essential to the clear understanding of the whole teaching given through this literature. It is nevertheless a problem that can be solved with hylozoic knowledge and method.
If you cast a glance again at the tables in the beginning of the chapter “Man’s Three Aspects According to Alice A. Bailey”, you will see that “soul” is a term for the “second aspect”, that is: the second triad. Thus we can make a distinction between
(1) “soul” in the sense of consciousness in general and of any kind, and
(2) “soul” in the sense of consciousness at the level of the second triad (45–47).
The first sense of soul is not common in the Bailey literature. The second sense, consciousness on the second triad level, is far more common.
In the following, we shall examine the Bailey use of “soul”, in the first sense to begin with, and then in the second sense.
“Soul” in the Sense of Consciousness in General and of Any Kind
Hylozoics teaches that “The thing most essential for understanding the consciousness aspect of existence is to know that there is only one consciousness in the cosmos, the cosmic total consciousness, of which every monad has an inalienable part. This consciousness is an amalgamation of the consciousness of all monads in the cosmos.” KofR 2.4.1
Therefore, it is important to realize that different kinds of collective consciousness are meant in the following statements:
“It should be borne in mind that the soul of matter, the anima mundi, is the sentient factor in substance itself. It is the responsiveness of matter throughout the universe and that innate faculty in all forms, from the atom of the physicist, to the solar system of the astronomer, which produces the undeniable intelligent activity which all demonstrate. It can be called attractive energy, coherency, sentiency, aliveness, awareness or consciousness, but perhaps the most illuminating term is the quality which every form manifests.” (WM 33; italics by L.A.)
“This soul manifests differently in the various kingdoms of nature, but its function is ever the same,” (WM 35)
“Students must not get confused by the complexity of the subject. They must learn certain large generalisations, and remember that as the omniscience of the soul is tapped, the more detailed knowledge will gradually fall into place.” (WM 291)
In the quotation last cited, “soul” means the same as the “universal soul” or anima mundi, that is, the planetary collective consciousness in atomic worlds (not molecular worlds) 46–49. There is an explicit reference to the “universal soul” in WM 47.
Hylozoics teaches us that “The collective consciousness is the primary and common one; the individual self-consciousness the individual must acquire by himself throughout ever higher natural kingdoms, this being possible because of his very participation in the collective consciousness.” (KofR 2.4.2)
There are also some places in WM, where “soul” denotes individual human consciousness of an unspecified kind. In these places, “soul” is afforded specified meanings by the addition of various qualifications, such as “animal”, “divine”, “human”, “onlooking”, “on its own plane”. etc.
The soul… is that in man which makes him aware of his environment and his group, which enables him to live his life in the three worlds of his normal evolution as the onlooker, the perceiver, the actor. This is what enables him eventually to discover that this soul in him is dual and that part of him which responds to the animal soul and part of him recognises his divine soul. The majority however, at this time will be found functioning as neither purely animal nor purely divine, but can be regarded as human souls.” (WM 36f)
(About conditions in the emotional world) “Because the forces in the aspirant’s own body are equally in disorder, he blends in with the surrounding chaos to such an extent that it is at first almost impossible for the onlooking soul to dissociate its own astral mechanism from the astral mechanism of humanity as a whole, and from the astral mechanism of the world.” (WM 221f)
“It must be remembered that none of these names and these activities [of the evil forces] refer to the soul on its own plane but only to human souls in incarnation on the physical plane. This must be stressed, for on its [sic!] own plane the souls of all men stand free from illusion, and neither can be destroyed, deluded nor manipulated.” (WM 241, quoted above)
“Soul in the Sense of Consciousness on the Level of the Second Triad
As is clear from our discussion in the chapter “Man’s Three Aspects According to Alice A. Bailey”, the terms “soul”, “ego”, and “higher self” are used to denote consciousness in the second triad. There is an important difference seen in the use of “soul” on the one hand and “ego” and “higher self” on the other. In contradistinction to “soul”, “ego” and “higher self” are never used in the sense of consciousness in general and of any kind earlier discussed. Where “higher self” is concerned, this is self-evident; the very choice of the word “higher” precludes its use for everyday human consciousness, which by definition is “lower” (“lower self”, etc., compare the second tabulation in the beginning of the chapter “Man’s Three Aspects…”). Therefore, we shall also discuss the sense of “ego” in this chapter.
But before we proceed any further, we must remind the reader of three very important hylozoic principles. Without having them in mind, there can never be any true understanding of the issues discussed here.
(1) There is no consciousness but consciousness of matter, consciousness in matter. Expressed differently: consciousness is always bound up with matter, has always a material basis. This implies in its turn that you can define any kind of consciousness by referring to the kind or kinds of matter corresponding to it. In fact, this is the only possible way of dividing, defining, or classifying consciousness. This principle is called the basic materialism of hylozoics.
(2) There is no consciousness but as a result of the process of manifestation (the process of involution followed by the process of evolution). This implies that, however high a level of consciousness a being is on, this being must have reached that level by evolving from a lower level and, in the last analysis, from the very lowest. Consequently, this being must have gone through all the stages not just of the process of evolution but of the whole process of manifestation. This principle is called the consistent evolutionism of hylozoics.
(3) There is no self-consciousness but inherent in a permanent, material monad, which is different from its envelopes. Consistent evolutionism implies or presupposes that one and the same individuality evolves from the subhuman natural kingdoms to the human kingdom, from there to the superhuman and divine kingdoms. This individual consciousness, or self, must have a material basis. This material basis cannot be any one of those three called “man’s three aspects” by Bailey (called the three triads in hylozoics), since the individuality will abandon them in turn and as its consciousness evolves beyond them. The material basis of the self is in all kingdoms a primordial atom which is called the monad. This hylozoic principle is called monadology.
Starting from the three principles just mentioned, we must, when trying to grasp what Bailey means by “soul”, answer two questions one of which occasions an attendant question.
Question (1): What kind of consciousness in the second triad is intended: causal (47:1-3) or essential (46:1-7) or even lower superessential (45:4-7)? Attendant question: What degree of awakening (self-activation) is intended?
These two questions concerning kinds of consciousness and degrees of self-activation are important, since there is a considerable difference in consciousness capacity between an individual, say, at the stage of culture in the human kingdom who is having his first conscious contacts with causal consciousness (in 47:3), and an individual on the highest levels of the stage of unity, that is to say, an individual who has left the human kingdom and is functioning with permanent self-consciousness not just in 47:1 but in 46:1-7 as well.
Question (2): When Bailey differentiates between man’s “higher self” (ego or soul) and “illusory self” and by the latter means our ordinary physical, emotional, and mental self-consciousness, how is this teaching to be understood in the light of hylozoics, which teaches that man’s self is the monad consciousness on any level – physical, emotional, or mental – wherever it is to be found?
Let us first try to answer Question (1). Often there are no sure indications whether causal (47:1-3) or essential (46) consciousness or both are intended when “soul” or “ego” is spoken of. Readers of Bailey perhaps think that “soul” and “ego” always mean causal (consciousness or body), since “egoic body” is a synonym for “causal body, but this need not always be the case. Here, for instance, we have two passages in WM, where “soul” obviously refers to essential (46) consciousness:
“1. Only the soul has a direct and clear understanding of the creative purpose and of the plan.
2. Only the soul, whose nature is intelligent love can be trusted with the knowledge, the symbols and the formulas which are necessary to the correct conditioning of the magical work.
3. Only the soul has power to work in all three worlds at once, and yet remain detached, and therefore karmically free from the results of such work.
4. Only the soul is truly group-conscious and actuated by pure unselfish purpose.
5. Only the soul, with the open eye of vision, can see the end from the beginning, and can hold in steadiness the true picture of the ultimate consummation.” (WM 126)
“The soul is group conscious and group controlled, and (until the causal body has been overcome and liberation from its control achieved) the real significance of purity will not be comprehended.” (WM 258)
It is clear from the two quotations last cited that “soul” refers also to consciousness and ability above the causal and beyond the human kingdom.
However, often “soul” means the self-consciousness of the human monad in its causal envelope, or, to express it more exactly, in its second triad 47-atom. It is very important to understand that human causal self-consciousness awakens or develops gradually, that it has not been there all the time as an “omniscient higher self” of sorts. Below a few quotations from WM are cited, where “soul” means the awakening causal self-consciousness of the human monad.
“Inspiration originates on the higher levels; it presupposes a very high point in evolution, for it involves the egoic consciousness and necessitates the use of atomic matter, thus opening up a wide range of communicators. It spells safety. It should be remembered that the soul is always good; it may lack knowledge in the three worlds and in this way be deficient; but it harbours no evil.” (WM 180)
(Two remarks: the “atomic matter” mentioned is 47:1, the “three worlds” are 47, 48, and 49.)
“The day comes, however, when the soul awakens to the need of dominating the situation and of asserting its own authority. Then the man (spasmodically at the beginning) takes stock of the situation. He has to discover first which type of energy preponderates and is the motivating force in his daily experience. Having discovered this, he begins to re-organize, to re-orient and to re-build his bodies. The whole of this teaching can be summed up in two words: Vice and Virtue.
“Vice is the energy of the sheaths, individual or synthesised in the personality, as it controls the life activities and subordinates the soul to the sheaths and to the impulses and tendencies of the lower self.
“Virtue is the calling in of new energies and of a new vibratory rhythm so that the soul becomes the positive controlling factor and the soul forces supersede those of the bodies. This process is that of character building.” (WM 202f)
Henry T. Laurency paraphrases the last two paragraphs thus: “Vice is the energies of the envelopes of incarnation, synthesized in the personality, because they keep the self in its envelopes and counteract the causal energies.
“Virtue is for the self to utilize the causal energies and by means of them to control the personality (the energies of the envelopes of incarnation).” Henry T. Laurency, Knowledge of Life One, 5.13.10, 11
(The envelopes of incarnation are the mental, emotional, etheric and organic envelopes.)
“The stage wherein the soul, through concentration and meditation succeeds in imposing its ideas and impressions upon the mind held ‘steady in the light’ and so enables the mental body to respond to impressions and contacts emanating from the subjective and spiritual worlds.” (WM 227)
All great scientists and workers in the realm of objective nature have worked as souls.” (WM 333)
Therefore, the “world of souls” (WM 211) is the causal world (47:1-3), and when the pineal gland is said to be the “seat of the soul” (WM 183), it means that it is the seat of causal consciousness.
It is clear from her writings that Alice A. Bailey was not familiar with the teaching on the monad in its original Pythagorean sense. Otherwise she would have mentioned the monad when describing activities of the self-conscious individuality in the human kingdom. Instead she used the term “soul” in this sense as well. To forestall confusion, however, she was obliged to qualify the term “soul” with attributes such as “onlooking” and “human” to distinguish it from “soul” in the sense of causal consciousness, which she calls “soul on its own plane”. Two instances of this from WM are given below:
(About conditions in the emotional world) ”Because the forces in the aspirant’s own body are equally in disorder, he blends in with the surrounding chaos to such an extent that it is at first almost impossible for the onlooking soul to dissociate its own astral mechanism from the astral mechanism of humanity as a whole, and from the astral mechanism of the world.” (WM 221f)
”It must be remembered that none of these names and these activities refer to the soul on its own plane but only to human souls in incarnation on the physical plane.” (WM 241, previously quoted)
To sum up the discussion so far and also to answer Question (1) posed earlier, we say that the term “soul”, when not meaning collective consciousness of any kind whatever (which is not a common meaning in the Bailey literature), means the individual’s, the monad’s consciousness in some one of the three units of the second triad and, through it, in the pertaining envelope. In general, this implies the human monad centred in the second triad 47-atom and active, therefore, through the causal envelope, or the superhuman monad centred in the second triad 47-atom and 46-atom and active, therefore, in both the causal and essential envelopes. All stages of activation are implied, from the first, sporadic contacts with causal consciousness, where this is almost wholly passive and the individual’s self-active consciousness is almost wholly concentrated on mental and emotional levels, to full sovereignty in the causal and essential envelopes through a self-conscious centring in the second triad 47 and 46 atoms.
No to Question (2). If, where man is concerned, “soul” (when not meaning consciousness in general, which we have already discussed) only had reference to his awakening, incipient and, therefore, embryonic, faint causal and essential consciousness, we cannot understand and explain the references, numerous throughout the Bailey literature, to some other self-conscious principle in man, a principle which possesses superhuman consciousness and ability, and which is likewise called soul:
“The disciple on the physical plane and the inner teacher (whether one of the Great Ones or the ‘Master within the Heart’) need to know each other somewhat, and to accustom themselves to each other’s vibration.” (WM 65)
“It is a safe rule for aspirants to assume when they contact a high vibration and stimulus, that it is their own soul contacting them, the Master in the heart, and not run off with the idea (so flattering to their pride and personality) that the Master is endeavouring to reach them.” (WM 171)
In this meaning of “soul”, also “Ego”, “higher self”, and “Solar Angel” are used interchangeably:
[The aspirant is supposed to effect] “An harmonious cooperation with his solar Angel, so that solar force may impose its rhythm upon the lunar forces.” (WM 571)
(Note: “solar force” means energy from the second triad, the “lunar forces” mean the first triad energies.)
“The Ego on its own plane, realizes consciously its relationship to the Master, and seeks to transmit that consciousness to the Personality.
“The Higher Self on its own plane, is not trammelled by time and space, and (knowing the future as well as that which is past) seeks to bring the desired end nearer and make it more rapidly a fact.
“The Higher Self or Ego on its own plane has direct relationship with other egos on the same ray, and on a corresponding concrete or abstract ray, and – realizing that progress is made in group formation – works on that plane at the helping of his kind.” (LOM 33f)
[About the Ego’s own development it is said that the Ego makes] “frequent attempts to definitely control the lower self, a thing distasteful to the Ego, whose tendency is to rest content with consciousness and aspiration on its own plane.” (LOM 37)
When reading the passages just cited and other ones in the same vein, it is hardly possible to draw any other conclusion than that man is presented as consisting of two separate beings, two different selves, a higher self (or Ego), which is fully developed to a superhuman level of consciousness and activity and is content to remain there, and a lower self (the “personality”), our everyday self with its experience of the physical world and self-consciousness in it (between incarnations in the emotional and mental worlds as well).
Such a “two-selves doctrine” agrees fairly well with Indian exoteric pantheism (Shankara’s advaita). According to the latter, man’s true self is a divine being (atman) at home in a higher world, whereas the self-consciousness man experiences and identifies himself with as his self has only a shadowy, unreal, and illusory existence. The implication is that the entire human existence, nay, the whole of evolution, is absurd. Why must we live as shadows and unreal illusory beings in an imperfect state, when our true self already lives in a divine state or even has been there always? This cannot possibly be the genuine and original esoteric teaching. It is in unresolvable conflict with consistent evolutionism and monadology, which both are true esoteric teachings.
A propos this Laurency makes a few observations that are noteworthy:
“The fundamental divergence of Pythagoras’ hylozoics and Shankara’s pantheism is that advaita assumes that consciousness can exist without a material basis, while according to hylozoics consciousness cannot have a separate existence independent of matter, but is always and necessarily bound up with matter.
“According to pantheism, life must be without a rational purpose. The universal soul separates from itself the individual soul, which after meaningless wandering about (metempsychosis) through the four natural kingdoms, finally succeeds in attaining nirvana, and is annihilated by being reabsorbed into an eternally immutable universal soul that works blindly and automatically without a purpose. It is understandable that self-consciousness as having no firm point for its own existence, must be assumed to merge with the primordial soul once it is freed from matter. ” KofR 7.2.24f
According to consistent evolutionism, the human monad possesses no higher self-consciousness than what it has managed to acquire (activate) through its own work (according to the law of self-activation) in the process of evolution from the lowest world (the physical world) up.
According to monadology, there cannot simultaneously be two separate levels of self-consciousness in man, if by man we mean the human monad. If there is reference to some higher principle in contact with man, self-conscious as man is self-conscious, then it must be another individual, another monad, than the human monad.
It must not be assumed that the facts just mentioned were not known to the real author or inspirer of the Bailey books, 45-self D.K. Of course they were. However, his amanuensis, Alice A. Bailey, was apparently not familiar with them or, at any event, did not adapt the terminology she had taken over from the earlier theosophists to reflect these facts.
Yet it is very clear from the writings penned by Alice A. Bailey, A Treatise on Cosmic Fire (CF) in particular, that the higher self, Ego, the soul or solar Angel, to which there are numerous references, is neither the human monad nor any kind of mere passive human consciousness, but another monad, another individual, who is self-conscious and self-active in superhuman worlds, independent of whether and when the human monad is self-conscious and self-active in its worlds. But these beings nevertheless have a very close connection with man, “for these solar Angels concern his own essential nature, and are also the creative power by which he works.” (CF 680)
They are far evolved beings, corresponding second selves (45 – 47:3) of the human evolution, “Nirvanis from a preceding Mahamanvantara.” (CF 681)
(Note: a nirvani is an individual who has attained nirvana, or world 45; a mahamanvantara is the period of the manifestation of a solar system, see PhS 2.49)
Their work consists, among other things, in building the causal envelope in 47:1 matter and in so doing connect man’s first and second triads. They derive their origin from world 46 (“the logoic middle principle”, CF 681, 689ff), and have at least 46:1 consciousness.
In Pythagorean terminology, which is preferably used by students of hylozoics, the solar Angel is called Augoeides. This Greek word means the “shining one”; in English the singular is distinguished from the plural by never having the definite article. The work of the Augoeides with human beings begins at the latter’s causalization (Bailey: “individualisation”), the transition of the monads from the animal to the human kingdom) and consists in being the agents of the law of destiny where individuals and groups are concerned, in inspiring man from causal levels (possible only at the stage of culture on), but never in leading man in the manifest way that the so-called spiritual guides of the emotional world do.
The Augoeides have long ago passed through the stage corresponding to the human kingdom in consciousness development (CF 686, 699f). However, they have never been human beings (at least their majority), since they belong to another line of evolution than the human, a parallel evolution called the deva or angel evolution. That they are devas, or angels, is clear from CF and also from the terms used in that book: fire devas, manasa devas, solar angels; it is also clear from WM 100f. Augoeides is called a “radiant angelic existence” in IHS 115 and the “Ego, the Thinker, the Solar Lord, or Manasadeva” in IHS 136.
In the following, I cite some interesting information on Augoeides gathered mostly from WM. I must emphasize here that in these quotations, the “soul” or “Ego” referred to is not a mere higher envelope of man, such as his causal envelope, but another individual, another monad, using man’s causal envelope as a means of contacting the human monad. I beg the reader’s pardon, if I appear tedious or repetitious, but I believe there is no subject in theosophy or of the Bailey literature about which confusion is more thorough and rife:
“The white magician is one who is in touch with his soul.” (WM 57)
“As the man seeks to reach control of the mind, the soul in its turn becomes more actively aggressively.” (WM 88)
“The flowering forth of the mind in men, which so distinguishes the present age, indicates to the solar Angel a second crisis, of which the first was but the symbol. That for which the solar Angel exists is making its presence felt within humanity, and another strong pull is being exerted upon the solar Angel which this time will produce a second fecundation. This will give to man those qualities which will enable him to transcend human limitations, and become part of the fifth or spiritual kingdom in nature. The first effort of the solar Angel turned animal-men into human beings; the second will turn human beings into spiritual entities, plus the gains of experience in the human family.” (WM 88f)
“Such disciples are in conscious contact at times with their own soul forces and for them there is no defeat nor turning back. They are the tried warriors, scarred and tired, yet knowing that triumphant victory lies ahead, for the soul is omnipotent.” (WM 231)
“The darkness may be intellectual, and is consequently still more difficult to penetrate, for in this case the power of the Ego must be called in, whereas in the former frequently the calm reasoning of the lower mind may suffice to dispel the trouble. Here, in this specific case, the disciple will be wise if he not only attempts to call his Ego or Higher Self for the dispelling of the cloud, but calls likewise upon his Teacher, or even upon his Master, for the assistance that they can give.” (LOM 133)
In LOM 294 (page 290 of the first edition, 1922), Augoeides is called the “doorkeeper”.
Where the human monad is concerned, the task of Augoeides is to guide it through its evolution in the human kingdom. Augoeides is the keeper of the human monad’s second triad (45:4, 46:1, 47:1), until the monad can take possession of it self-consciously.
Augoeides has his higher counterpart, the keeper of the third triad (43:4, 44:1, 45:1). In order to come under his inspiration, man must be able to function consciously in his second triad. The Pythagorean term for the keeper of the third triad is Protogonos (Greek for “firstborn”). Augoeides and Protogonos are the “two connecting principles” (connecting the second triad with the first triad, and the third triad with the second triad, respectively) mentioned in CF 681. The “Presence” and “Father in Heaven” mentioned in IHS 117 have reference to Protogonos.
Augoeides has accomplished his task when man essentializes (in theosophical and Bailey parlance: takes the fourth initiation) and, so to speak, becomes his own Augoeides. Reference to this is made in IHS 117, 137:
“The solar angel hitherto contacted has withdrawn himself, and the form through which he functioned (the egoic or causal body) has gone, and naught is left but love-wisdom and that dynamic will which has the prime characteristic of Spirit. The lower self has served the purposes of the Ego, and has been discarded; the Ego likewise has served the purposes of the Monad, and is no longer required, and the initiate stands free of both, fully liberated and able to contact the Monad, as earlier he learned to contact the Ego.” (IHS 117)
(Notes: “Love-wisdom” means 46-consciousness; “dynamic will” and “Spirit” have reference to 45-consciousness. It is very important to realize that Bailey’s Monad is not the Pythagorean monad, the self-atom, but the third triad and its deva keeper, Protogonos.)
“By the time the fourth initiation has been reached, the work of destruction is accomplished, the solar angel returns to his own place, having performed his function, and the solar lives seek their point of emanation. ” (IHS 137)
(Notes: the “fourth initiation” refers to the causal self’s transformation into a 46-self, essentialization. The “work of destruction” means the dissolution of the causal envelope at essentialization. The “solar lives” and their “point of emanation” concern the evolutionary collective beings of tertiary matter which make up the four centres of the causal envelope, and which at the dissolution of the envelope return to the planetary store of causal tertiary matter.)
The “Ego” mostly means Augoeides. There are some places, however, where the “Ego” has reference to man’s causal envelope and its developing consciousness. Below I cite one such instance from WM, and another from LOM.
“He begins to realise that his Master works with his soul and that it is his ego, therefore, which is en rapport with the Master and not the personal self.” (WM 170)
(Notes: Here “soul” and “ego” are synonyms, with the possible distinction that ”soul” has more bearing on the consciousness aspect of the causal envelope, and the “ego” more on the matter and energy aspects. The “personal self” means the first triad and its envelopes: the mental, emotional, etheric envelopes, and the organism.)
To the on-looking Hierarchy it is apparent that the divine fire is permeating and warming and radiating throughout the causal body, and that the Ego is becoming ever more conscious on his own plane, and ever more interested – via the permanent atoms, – in the life of the Personality.” (LOM 26f)
(Notes: The “divine fire” is the energy of the third triad, the “permanent atoms” are the first triad. The “Personality” is the human monad in the first triad.)
Now we are ready to answer Question (2). When in the Bailey literature distinction is made between man’s “higher self” (the “Ego” or the “soul”) and “lower self”, or the “personality” (the “personality” meaning our everyday physical, emotional, and mental self-consciousness), and this implies that there is self-consciousness on two quite separate levels simultaneously, this must be understood as referring to two separate individuals or monads: Augoeides as a monad and the human being as a monad. In contrast, whenever there is mention of self-consciousness in the first triad and in the second triad at different occasions, this can also be understood as meaning that the self-consciousness of the human monad shifts between the two, but it is by no means certain, and to decide in each particular case what is the intended meaning may prove difficult.
Summary and Conclusion
In the Bailey literature, the use of the poorly delimited and therefore vague terms “soul” and “Ego”, on the one hand, and the absence of the teaching on the monad, or the self, in the original Pythagorean sense, on the other, present serious obstacles to students desiring a clear understanding of consciousness development. Factors adding to confusion are: the incorrect use of the term Monad for the third triad, the talk of man as consisting of multiple selves (“lower” and “higher” ones), and the failure to distinguish clearly between higher envelopes of the human monad and Augoeides (the “solar Angel”).
The main difficulties may be summed up as follows:
Every thinking human being is aware that he is a self, but when reading the theosophical and Bailey literature, he is informed that this is not his true self, but the “lower self”, and that his true self is the “higher self”. This is absurd on at least three points, since it implies (1) that evident human experience is denied, (2) that two or three self-conscious beings in man are posited, and (3) that the continuity and permanence of the self is denied when equating the self with perishable envelopes for the monad, such as the second or third triad.
Pythagorean hylozoics resolves these difficulties by teaching that the sole content of the cosmos are imperishable primordial atoms, or monads, and their compositions. Monads that have acquired self-consciousness are selves. Monads that have not yet acquired self-consciousness make up composite atoms of lower and higher kinds, and these composite atoms, in their turn, make up envelopes for self-conscious monads. The human self is a self-conscious monad. Man’s multiple bodies are envelopes for the monad, but so are his triads as well, those beings which Bailey calls the “quaternary” or the “personality” (the first triad), the “soul”, “Ego” or “Triad” (the second triad), and the “Monad” (the third triad). Any one of these envelopes is a self to the monad whenever the monad identifies itself with its consciousness; for example: the human monad is an emotional self when identifying itself with the consciousness of its emotional envelope (or “astral body”), and a mental self when identifying itself with the consciousness of its mental envelope. However, this identification of the monad with its envelopes results from the monad’s ignorance of itself. Man, for instance, is sometimes aware that he is self-conscious, but even then he is ignorant of the fact that this self-consciousness is the monad’s consciousness. But upon learning that he is an imperishable monad, he should not, when self-conscious, say to himself, “my monad is self-conscious now”, but “I, the monad, am self-conscious now”.
There are at least seven clearly distinguishable, different uses or meanings of the term “soul” in the Bailey literature, namely (1) consciousness in general and as a universal phenomenon; (2) the causal envelope and its (at lower human stages) passive consciousness; (3) the second triad and its passive consciousness (passive before the human monad has become a second self); (4) the human monad in general (then it is often called the “human soul”); (5) the human monad after its acquisition of self-consciousness in the causal envelope (being then a causal self); (6) the superhuman monad after its acquisition of self-consciousness in the 46-envelope (being then a 46-self); (7) Augoeides (often called the “soul on its own plane”). The term “Ego” is used interchangeably with “soul” in all the senses just cited above, except (1).
There are serious problems involved in using the same term for several things and several terms for the same thing, such as the uses of the terms “soul”, and “Ego” in the Bailey literature. This inexactitude in the use of terms makes it impossible for students to reach the requisite clarity. Instead, fictions are produced in their minds, in two ways:
(1) They will necessarily confuse different things, for instance, the consciousness aspect in general with a particular envelope for consciousness, or the mere passive causal consciousness at lower human stages with the self-active causal consciousness at the highest human stage and at superhuman stages, or the human monad with Augoeides, since all these different things are called “soul”.
(2) And they will tend to entify terms such as “soul” and “Ego”, that is, believe that there exists some being called “soul” and characterized by all the mutually contradictory functions and attributes the Bailey literature confers on the “soul”, and also believe that there is some being called the “Ego”, similarly characterized by its stated peculiar functions and attributes, and therefore that “soul” and “Ego” are distinct beings, because distinct terms are used for them, whereas the opposite to this is the case: different beings or things are denoted by “soul”, and yet “soul” and “Ego” are used interchangeably.
The failure to give out the teaching on the monad in its true, original Pythagorean sense, while retaining the term monad and, therefore, using it erroneously has, as Laurency says, “occasioned an irremediable confusion of ideas” (Laurency, Knowledge of Life Three, 5.24.3).
All of the confusions, mix-ups, and misuses of terms cited in the present paper are part and parcel of the “heritage of Blavatsky”. Blavatsky was unconcerned with terminology to the point of carelessness, it is true, but she was also seriously limited by the constraints imposed upon her by her teachers and informants, who did not wish too much of the esoteric knowledge to be revealed at the time, and so rather preferred vagueness, ambiguity, and confusion, regarding them as protective coverings as it were.
However, even after considerably more knowledge was permitted for publication through 45-self D.K., the original vagueness, ambiguity, and confusion were not much remedied. Bailey was about as little interested in terminology as Blavatsky, and D.K. did not force the issue. Besides, why should he have done so? It is implied by the iron-hard law of self-realization that whatever can be done by human beings must be done by us, and not by superhuman beings. And it can be done by human beings, as Henry T. Laurency has demonstrated in his writings. If the present paper can in some measure serve as a continuation of the pioneer work he initiated, it has served its purpose.
Abbreviations used in this paper
CF – Alice A. Bailey: A Treatise on Cosmic Fire
IHS – Alice A. Bailey: Initiation Human and Solar
KofR – Henry T. Laurency: The Knowledge of Reality
LOM – Alice A. Bailey: Letters on Occult Meditation
PhS – Henry T. Laurency: The Philosopher’s Stone
WM – Alice A. Bailey: A Treatise on White Magic
All the works by Henry T. Laurency referred to in the present paper are to be found on-line at The Official Website of the Henry T. Laurency Publishing Foundation, www.laurency.com
http://livskunskap.dyndns.org/hylozoik/english/esot_term/some_problems.htm
Оценил 1 человек
1 кармы