23
Now, in the case of the fifth principle above-mentioned—the entity that came into existence by the combination of Brahmam and Prakriti,—if the general proposition (in the "Fragments of Occult Truth") is correct, this principle which corresponds to the Physical intelligence must cease to exist whenever the Brahmam or the seventh principle should cease to exist for the particular individual; but the fact is certainly otherwise. The general proposition under consideration is adduced in the "Fragments" in support of the assertion that whenever the seventh principle ceases to exist for any particular individual, the sixth principle also ceases to exist for him. The assertion is undoubtedly true though the mode of stating it and the reasons assigned for it are to my mind objectionable.
It is said that in cases where tendencies of a man's mind are entirely material, and all spiritual aspirations and thoughts were altogether absent from his mind, the seventh principle leaves him either before or at the time of death, and the sixth principle disappears with it. Here, the very proposition that the tendencies of the particular individual's mind are entirely material, involves the assertion that there is no spiritual intelligence or spiritual Ego in him. It should then have been said that, whenever spiritual intelligence ceases to exist in any particular individual, the seventh principle ceases to exist for that particular individual for all purposes. Of course, it does fly off anywhere. There can never be anything like a change of position in the case of Brahmam.*[1] The assertion merely means that when there is no recognition whatever of Brahmam, or spirit, or spiritual life, or spiritual consciousness, the seventh principle has ceased to exercise any influence or control over the individual's destinies.
- ↑ * True—from the standpoint of Aryan Esotericism, and the Upanishads; not quite so in the case of the Arahat or Tibetan esoteric doctrine; and it is only on this solitary point that the two teachings disagree, as far as we know. The difference is very trifling though, resting, as it does, solely upon the two various methods of viewing the one and the same thing from two different aspects—See Appendix, Note IV.—Ed.
