Category: The Key To Theosophy (1889): H. P. Blavatsky

"Enq:  But how is it that this doctrine, which you say is as old as thinking men, has found no room, say, in Christian theology?   Theo:  You are mistaken, it has; only theology has disfigured it out of all recognition, as it has many other doctrines.   Theology calls the EGO the Angel that [...]

"Theo (cont):  In its very essence it is THOUGHT, and is, therefore, called in its plurality Manasa putra, "the Sons of the (Universal) mind." This individualized "Thought" is what we Theosophists call the real human Ego, the thinking Entity imprisoned in a case of flesh and bones.   This is surely a Spiritual Entity, not [...]

"Enq:  But you wanted to tell me something of the essential nature of Manas, and of the relation in which the Skandhas of physical man stand to it?   Theo:  It is this nature, mysterious, Protean, beyond any grasp, and almost shadowy in its correlations with the other principles, that is most difficult to realize, [...]

"Enq:  And is it this Ego of ours which is our God?   Theo:  Not at all';  "A God" is not the universal deity, but only a spark from the one ocean of Divine Fire.  Our God within us, or "our Father in Secret" is what we call the "Higher Self", Atma.   Our incarnating [...]

"Enq:  What do you mean by the root dwelling in eternity?   Theo:  I mean by this root the thinking entity, the Ego which incarnates, whether we regard it as an "Angel", "Spirit", or a Force. Of that which falls under our sensuous perceptions only what grows directly from, or is attached to this invisible [...]

"Enq:  How would you name them, and especially how would you explain the permanence of one and the evanescence of the other?   Theo:  We have our own doctrine ready, and to us it offers no difficulty. The clue lies in the double consciousness of our mind, and also, in the dual nature of the [...]

"Enq:  I perceive in the quotation you brought forward a little while ago from the Buddhist Catechism a discrepancy that I would like to hear explained. It is there stated that the Skandhas - memory included - change with every incarnation. And yet, it is asserted that the reflection of the past lives, which, we [...]

"Theo (cont):  To avoid henceforth such misapprehension, I propose to translate literally from the Occult Eastern terms their equivalents in English, and these for future use.   The HIGHER SELF is:  Atma, the inseparable ray of the Universal and ONE SELF. It is the God above, more than within us. Happy the man who succeeds [...]

"Theo (cont):  This "Higher Self" is ATMA, and of course it is "non-materializable", as Mr. Sinnett says.  Even more, it can never be "objective" under any circumstances, even to the highest spiritual perception. For Atman or the "Higher Self" is really Brahma, the ABSOLUTE, and indistinguishable from it.   In hours of Samadhi, the higher [...]

"Enq:  Don't you think it is because there are no definite and fixed terms to indicate each "Principle" in man, that such a confusion of ideas arises in our minds with respect to the respective functions of these "Principles"?   Theo:  I have thought of it myself.  The whole trouble has arisen from this:  we [...]