Blavatsky about life after death. What is immortal in a person

LIFE AFTER DEATH Irina Alekseevna had enough strength of spirit, will, and most importantly, faith in God - “all is Thy holy will, O Lord” - so as not to get confused, not to fall into despair, not to give up. Now she saw the meaning of her life in perpetuating the memory of Sergei Nikolaevich. And in

When I sat down to write this article, I decided to first look at some materials touching on this topic. Surprisingly, they seemed very interesting to me, which is why my thoughts ran faster and headed towards my cherished goal. It was confirmed that not only philosophy deals with the named problem, but philosophical psychology, a science that separated from the narrow psychological discipline and devoted itself to the study of man and his soul, also joined it. Most psychologists did not want to be limited people, therefore they rushed to philosophical wisdom. They stopped perceiving a person from the point of view of a pathologist, psychophysiologist, physiologist, geneticist, sociologist, and the like. Let's remember Andrei Bely. When he fell ill, he wrote to his friend that “psychology has “densified” in me into physiology,” these terms penetrated into psychology. Such periods, says V.P. Zinchenko, every person has times when he has no time for the soul, no time for psychology, no time even for wise thoughts, when his body hurts greatly and he wants to scream.

We also note that the human psyche is very often studied using non-psychological methods. A. Pyatigorsky spoke about this in his book on Buddhism, who recalled that ancient Buddhism substantiates the thesis that the psyche can be studied not only by psychological methods, but with the help of occultism and magic.

Finally, innovative psychologists came to a consensus that the human soul and his body deserve to become full-fledged and full-fledged subjects of psychological research. According to Zinchenko, the study of the human body is endless, because it, like Nature itself, is limitless and bottomless. Even Spinoza once said: “No one has yet determined what the human body is capable of.” (Spinoza. Ethics). That’s why it makes sense to say that science will not determine everything soon.

Another philosopher, already from the twentieth century close to us, a favorite of most of us, Merab Mamardashvili, wrote that the finite body contains the perfect and the infinite. But for a long time we could not find this perfect and infinite in a finite body. But Mamardashvili found it, and not just anywhere, but in the flesh of Jesus Christ, and called it in Cartesian words: “metaphysical matter.” It is in Christ that the perfect and infinite resides under the name of metaphysical matter.

Of course, the human soul can be defined in different words. How many people - so many opinions. We have already talked about Plato’s definition of the soul in our article “Blavatsky and Plato”, now we would like to listen to other opinions.

We named V.P. Zinchenko calls the soul “something like a symbol.” “This is a symbol that plugs holes in our ideas, and where cause-and-effect relationships are not enough for us.” (V.P. Zinchenko. About the soul).

To characterize the soul, the author cites Bakhtin’s definition: “The soul is the gift of my spirit to another person.” Of course, he sneers, there would be something to give. Although he personally is closest to Mamardashvili’s definition: “The soul is something that hurts without a reason.” Our opinion is this: the soul does not hurt without a reason.

Theologians say that the soul is between the spirit and the body. But for thinkers like Buber or Bakhtin, it is between us, i.e. between people. Sometimes they merge together. It's no secret that a body without a soul is dead. Only with the death of a person does the soul leave him and rush into the blue distance.

According to the logic of the philosopher Fyodor Stepun, the soul is located between the present and the past. And according to Erich Fromm, it is between the present and the future. It turns out this way, the author ironizes, as one smart Odessa woman said: “What happened, I saw, but what will happen, I already said.”

It is no secret that many sages were looking for the place where our soul is. And Gustav Shpet found such a place. These are his words that “the whole soul is appearance.” “She envelops us with a gentle, soft cover. And all the blows that are dealt to the soul are reflected on the appearance in the form of wrinkles and scars. They are on our outer face. Mandelstam said on this occasion that “the spiritual is accessible to the eye, and the outlines live”... If there was a projector, then it would be possible to show the face of Mandelstam himself and many other faces where this spirituality is undeniable.”

The soul, as most of us understand it, is all-pervasive, omnipresent, and in each of these places it performs its functions. For each philosopher they are completely different. For example, Fichte explained to us that the soul and consciousness assign organs to the formation, to the creation of these organs. This means that the soul sculpts the body, it rejoices, suffers, and writes our biography. At the same time, she herself is either developing or revealing herself. The main problem, notes Zinchenko, is the ontology of the soul. The author wants to know whether there is any reality behind the soul, including his own, that he is ready to offer as an ontology?

“The astral body is not Spirit”

In the article "Spirit" and "Soul" Blavatsky tries to explain to the editor of the magazine "Spirutalist" how she understands these concepts and what they really mean for people. E.P. quotes the words of one of the correspondents who sent his article to this magazine, which contains the following words: “If Theosophists had fully comprehended the nature of the soul and spirit and their relationship with the body, they would understand that if the soul leaves the body, then it cannot return Maybe. The spirit may depart, but if the soul departs once, it departs forever.” (Ibid.).

Blavatsky considers such a statement vague and ambiguous. If by the term “soul” he does not mean a vital principle, she explains, then one can assume that he is making a big mistake in calling astral body spirit, and the immortal essence - “soul”. Theosophists do exactly the opposite.

In addition to the unfounded accusation of ignorance among theosophists, Blavatsky sees that the author of the article expresses the idea that the problem that has occupied the minds of metaphysicians of all centuries has already been solved. She doesn't believe this statement. He also does not believe that Theosophists and other scientists have “fully” penetrated into the nature of the soul and spirit, and into their relationship with the body. This is only possible through Omniscience, which they actually do not have. Theosophists, following in the footsteps of the ancient sages, can only hope to get closer to the absolute truth. It is doubtful to her that Mr. Croucher can achieve more, even if he is an "inspired medium" with experience in showing his miracles.

Modern dogmas, so dearly loved by spiritualists, she notes, cannot disappear from the world as quickly as did the monster of Thebes, which threw itself into the sea from a cliff to disappear forever.

Blavatsky proves that the magazine's correspondents, Oxon and Crowsher, misunderstood Colonel Olcott and misinterpreted the views of the New York Theosophists on the problem of spirit and man. Olcott did not say or imply that the immortal spirit leaves the body for mediumistic manifestations, as these authors write about. For them the word "spirit" means the inner, astral man, or double. Olcott spoke about something else, about souls: “Mediumistic physical phenomena are produced not by pure spirits, but by “souls” - incarnate or disembodied, and usually with the help of elementals.”

By placing the word “souls” in quotation marks, Blavatsky emphasized the unusual meaning. As a theosophist, Olcott could have expressed himself more precisely and more philosophically, and would have called the "soul" - "astral spirit", "astral man", or double. Therefore, says E.P., criticism is inappropriate here. “I am amazed at such indiscriminate denunciation, built on such shaky foundations. After all, our president is only putting forward the idea of triad man, as did the ancient and eastern philosophers and their worthy disciple Paul, who believed that the bodily substance, flesh and blood, is saturated psyche(psyche) - the soul, or astral body, thanks to which life is maintained in it. This doctrine - that man is a triad: spirit, or nous (nous), soul and body - was taught by the Apostle of the Gentiles much more widely and clearly than by his Christian followers (see 1 Thess. 5, 23). But, having apparently forgotten or not bothered to study "thoroughly" the transcendental views of the ancient philosophers and Christian apostles on this subject, Mr. Croucher considers the soul (psyche) like a spirit (nous) And vice versa". (In search of the occult).

It is pointless and naive for the correspondents of the magazine “Spiritualist” to argue with Helena Blavatsky on such delicate issues. Her knowledge of Buddhist, Indian, ancient and European philosophy is limitless. All her testimony is confirmed by authoritative sources and corresponds to the truth. Blavatsky's knowledge is several epochs ahead of its time.

The Buddhist idea of ​​dividing man into three entities as a single whole on the path to nirvana is not new to her either. Moreover, they also divide the soul into several parts, calling each of them a new name. All Buddhists do this so that there is no confusion on this issue. The ancient Greeks did the same, believing that psyche is bios- physical life and at the same time thumos- the nature of passions and desires. This did not apply to the animal world. In animals, it is not the soul that comes first, but the instincts.

“A man can gain the whole world, but lose his soul”

The soul-psyche, from Blavatsky's point of view, is itself a connection, consensus, or union bios- physical vitality, epithumia- natural inclinations and phrenos, mens- that is, the mind. Blavatsky includes the animus among them. The latter consists of an ethereal substance that fills the entire universe and comes from the soul of the world - Anima Mundi, or the Buddhist Svabhavat, which is not a spirit, although it is intangible and intangible. But, in comparison with spirit, or pure abstraction, it is objective matter. Due to its complex nature, the soul can descend and merge so closely with physical essence that all moral influence of higher life on her ceases. On the other hand, it may become so closely united with the nous or spirit that it becomes related to it. In this case, writes E.P., its “carrier,” a physical person, becomes a god even during his earthly life. Until the soul merges with the spirit - either during the life of a person or after his physical death - individual person will not become immortal as an entity. The psyche, sooner or later, disintegrates . Human may gain “the whole world”, but lose his “soul”.

To confirm her thoughts, Blavatsky refers to the Apostle Paul, who preached anastasis- the continuous existence of individual spiritual life after death. It was he who said that the perishable puts on the imperishable. This means that the spiritual body is not one of those visible and tangible bodies that appear at spiritualistic séances and are mistakenly called “materialized spirits.” "When metanoia,- she writes, - the complete development of spiritual life raises the spiritual body from the physical (the disembodied, corruptible astral man, which Olcott calls the “soul”), it becomes, in strict accordance with the progress achieved, an increasingly greater and greater abstraction for the bodily senses. It can influence, inspire and even communicate with people subjectively. It can be felt, and in those rare cases when the clairvoyant is absolutely pure and his consciousness is clear, even seen with the spiritual eye. This is the eye of the purified psyche - the soul. But there are no guarantees that it can manifest itself objectively.” (Soul and Spirit).

Applying the term "spirit" to materialized idols and spiritualist "form manifestations" is completely unacceptable, she says. In this case, the situation needs to change, because scientists have already begun to discuss this topic. At best these phenomena are, if not what the Greeks called phantasma then at least - phasma, that is, ghosts. Plutarch taught, writes E.P., that at the moment of death Proserpina separates the body and the perfect soul, and then the soul becomes free and independent demon (daimon). After this, the righteous undergo a second corruption: Demeter separates psyche from nousa, or pneuma. The first disintegrates over time into ethereal particles, hence the inevitable dissolution and destruction of man, who after death is a purely psychic entity. Last, nous, ascends to its highest divine power and gradually becomes purest, divine Spirit. Kalila, as E.P. knows, despised the mental essence of man. “It is this accumulation of the coarsest particles of the soul, the mesmeric secretions of human nature, saturated with all earthly desires and passions, vices, shortcomings and weaknesses, forming the astral body (which can become objective under certain circumstances), that Buddhists call skandhas(in groups), and Colonel Olcott, for convenience, dubbed it “soul”. (In search of the occult).

Blavatsky, to clarify the concepts of man and his soul, points to the teachings of Buddhists and Brahmanists. They teach that a person cannot achieve individuality until he is freed from skandhas - the final particles of earthly vice. Hence their doctrine of metempsychosis, ridiculed and not accepted by the greatest Orientalists. Even physicists teach, says E.P., that the particles that make up the physical body, in the process of evolution, are transformed into many lower physical forms. Why then, asks Blavatsky, is the Buddhist assertion considered unphilosophical and unscientific that the semi-material skandhas of the astral man go towards the evolution of small astral forms as soon as he sheds them in his advancement to nirvana?

Her answer is as follows: “We can say that while a disembodied person sheds a particle of these skandhas, a part of him incarnates in the bodies of plants and animals. And if he, a disembodied astral person, is so material that Demeter cannot find the slightest spark of pneuma to elevate it to “divine power,” then the personality, so to speak, gradually disintegrates and goes into evolutionary processing.” .

And even more precisely, she says, as the Hindus allegorically explain, the soul spends millennia in the bodies of unclean animals. Blavatsky mentally paints a picture of how the ancient Greeks and Hindu philosophers, eastern schools and theosophists line up in complete agreement on one side. On the other hand, an army of “inspired mediums” and “spiritual guides” stands in complete disarray. “And although among the latter there are not even two who agree with each other on what is true and what is not, they all unanimously deny any of the philosophical teachings, no matter what we bring!” .

Blavatsky is aware that her arguments do not mean that she or other Theosophists underestimate true spiritualistic phenomena and philosophy, and that they believe less in communications between pure mortals and pure spirits than between vicious people and vicious spirits, virtuous people and vicious spirits under unfavorable conditions.

For E.P. Occultism is the quintessence of spiritualism. For her, modern, popular spiritualism is falsified, unconscious magic. She will say more that all famous and great personalities, all greatest geniuses: poets, artists, sculptors, musicians, philosophers and natural scientists who selflessly worked to realize their highest ideals - they were all pure spiritualists. They cannot be called mediums, in in every sense words, as spiritualists call them. Rather, they are embodied, enlightened souls working in collaboration with pure discarnate and embodied planetary Spirits for the improvement and spiritualization of humanity.

Blavatsky and the Theosophists believe that everything in material life is closely connected with the spiritual world. With regard to psychic phenomena and mediumship, Theosophists believe that when the passive medium changes, or rather develops into a conscious mediator, only then will he be able to distinguish between good and bad spirits. While a person is incarnate (not counting the highest Adepts), he cannot compete in power with pure disembodied spirits who, freed from all their skandhas, become subjective to the physical senses. Although it may not be inferior and even far surpass in the field of phenomena, both mental and physical, the average “spirit” of modern mediumship. Following this, Blavatsky argues that Theosophists are more spiritualists, in the true sense of the word, than the so-called spiritualists, who, instead of honoring the true spirits - gods, degrade the very concept of spirit. They classify him among the impure or, at best, imperfect entities that produce most phenomena.

Mr. Croucher, for Blavatsky, is a very unimportant figure in the spiritualistic world. Protesting against two statements of the Theosophists: that a child is a "duad" at birth and remains so until six or seven years of life, and that some vicious personalities are destroyed after some time after their death, he puts forward two objections: that mediums have described to him his three children, "who died at the ages of two, four and six years." And also that he knows people who were “very immoral” but still returned to earth. Crowsher calls them “beautiful beings” who have learned the invisible laws that govern the Universe. By this they prove that they are worthy of the trust of their compatriots.

Ironizing the “brilliant” Crowsher, who knew the secret sciences, Blavatsky believes that this venerable Mr. is “competent enough” to evaluate these “beautiful beings” and give them the palm over Kapila, Manu, Plato and even the Apostle Paul. For this, she says, it is worth being "inspired by the medium." There are no such “beautiful beings” in the Theosophical Society from whom one could learn something. “While Mr. Croucher looks at things and evaluates them through the prism of his own emotions, the philosophers whom we study did not accept, from any “beautiful essences,” anything that is completely inconsistent with universal harmony, justice and balance on the manifest plane of the universe." (Ibid.).

Blavatsky explains that in his letter of December 7, 1876, Colonel Olcott successfully illustrates the issue of potential immortality by referring to the generally accepted physical law survival of the fittest. This law applies to both large and small - from the planet to the plant. It also approaches humans. For example, an underdeveloped male infant, placed in conditions for developed children, will live no longer than an imperfect plant or animal. In infancy, higher abilities are not yet developed; they are in a rudimentary, rudimentary state.

A baby, for Blavatsky, is an animal, no matter how “angelic” he may seem to his parents. Even the most beautiful body of a baby is just a casket preparing to receive its treasure. A baby, in her understanding, is an animal, a selfish creature, and nothing more. There is nothing in him even from the soul, the psyche, with the exception of the life principle. Hunger, fear, pain and pleasure form the basis of all his concepts. The kitten is superior to him in everything except capabilities. The gray matter of his brain is not yet developed. Over time, he begins to demonstrate mental abilities, but they relate only to external objects. The development of a child's mind can affect only that part of the soul that Paul calls the spiritual, and James and Jude - the sensory or spiritual. Hence the words of Jude (Jude 19): “natural, having no spirit,” and Paul: “ Soulful man does not accept what is from the Spirit of God, because he considers it foolishness; and cannot understand, because this must be judged spiritually.” (1 Cor. 2:14).

"Man's will weaves his destiny"

Only an adult who has learned to distinguish between good and evil is called spiritual, rational, and intuitive by Theosophists. Children developed to such a level would be a premature phenomenon, abnormal - a mistake of nature. Blavatsky thinks so.

“Why then should a child, who has never lived any other life than that of an animal, who has never distinguished truth from falsehood, who does not care whether he lives or dies, because he can understand either life or death, become individually immortal?” - asks E.P. And he explains that the human cycle does not end until a person passes through earthly life. Not a single stage of testing and experience can be skipped. One must be a man before one can become a spirit. A dead child is a mistake of nature - he must live again. The same psyche returns again to the physical plane through another birth. Such cases, along with congenital idiots, as stated in Isis Unveiled, are the only examples of human reincarnation (the term “reincarnation” is used here in relation to the soul only). “If every child-dyad is immortal, then why should we deny such individual immortality to an animal dyad? Those who believe in the trinity of man know that a baby is only a duad - soul and body. Individuality, which is inherent specifically in the psyche, is, as we can see, delving into the evidence of philosophers, perishable. Only adults acquire complete triplicity. After death, astral forms become an external body, within which another, more subtle one is formed. It takes the place of the psyche on the earthly plane. All this as a whole is more or less covered by the spirit.” (E.P. Blavatsky. New Panarion. Views of Theosophists)

Colonel Olcott could not explain that not all human elementals are destroyed. Some of them have a chance of salvation. With great effort they can retain their third, highest principle and can ascend sphere after sphere, shedding their veils at each transition. Then, putting on shining spiritual shells, move until triad, freed from all temporary particles, will not plunge into nirvana and will not become one - God.

One in whom, after death, not a single spark of the divine Ruach remained [Ruach (Heb.) Air, also Spirit; The spirit, one of the “principles of man” (Buddhi-Manas)], or nous, which gives the last chance for salvation, is a real animal, says Blavatsky. Such unfortunate facts take place in our lives, and not only among bad people, but also among respectable ones who want to achieve their immortality. Only the will of man, his almighty will, weaves fate, and if a person is firmly convinced that death is destruction, then he will receive it. After all, the choice of our life or death depends on the will of man. Some people managed to escape from the clutches of death only thanks to their will and righteous life, while others raised their hands up out of fear. What a person does with his body, he can do the same with his disembodied psyche, or soul.

Blavatsky calls “mediators of humanity” such people as Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Jesus, Paul, Apollonius of Tyana and others. All of them were adepts, philosophers, in a word, people who, having spent their lives in purity, righteousness and self-sacrifice, went through all the tests and achieved divine insight and superhuman abilities. They could not only revive phenomena, but also expel “demons” and demons from the possessed, considering this their sacred duty.

Despite the fact that Blavatsky's article was written more than 230 years ago, she today is relevant. How relevant are her words that in our time, a time of more developed psyche, every hysterical sensitive fancies himself a prophet, and there are now thousands of mediums. Without any training, self-denial or even simple mental preparation, they consider themselves specialists in the secret sciences, psychics and occultists, heralds of unknown and unknowable minds and want to surpass Socrates in their wisdom, the Apostle Paul in eloquence, and Tertullian in fiery and authoritative dogmatism .

Theosophists are not those who consider themselves infallible or saints. They want to be treated exactly the same as other people. Blavatsky believes that in the name of logic and common sense, before exchanging unpleasant words, it is better if disagreements are submitted to the court of reason. Let's compare everything and, discarding emotions and prejudices as unworthy of logicians and experimenters, stick only to what has stood the test of time, she says.

The Soul of Man in Isis Unveiled

Blavatsky understood Plato's philosophy as a finely developed compendium ( Compendium (lat.) - an abbreviated summary of the main provisions of philosophical systems), created to understand philosophical systems ancient india and the entire East. For her, Plato was a major interpreter of the laws of the world and nature. In his writings, the thinker faithfully conveyed the spirituality of the Vedic philosophers who lived thousands of years ago. He mastered their metaphysical subtleties and commented on them easily. It was clear that such ancient Eastern books as Vyasa, Jaimini, Kapila, Vrihaspati, Sumati and many others, despite their antiquity, left their indelible stamp on his works, and the works of his philosophical school. This suggested the conclusion that the same wisdom was revealed to Plato and the ancient sages of India. “And if this wisdom could survive such a blow of time, then what kind of wisdom could it be if not divine and eternal,” Blavatsky concludes.

Considering the human soul from the point of view of Indian philosophy, Plato established that justice exists in the soul of each of its owners, regardless of skin color, race, place of residence and religion, and it constitutes his greatest good. People, in proportion to their reason, recognize its transcendental demands as fair. That is why, says Blavatsky, Plato’s metaphysics is justified and stands on a solid foundation. Although its foundation is metaphysical, it is close to realistic principles.

Plato could not accept a philosophy devoid of spiritual foundations, all approaches to which constituted one essence. For the Greek sage there was one goal - real knowledge. A real philosopher and seeker of truth, he writes, is one who has knowledge of what really exists, who knows the laws of the world and man.

“Behind all finite existences and secondary causes, all laws, ideas and principles, there is REASON or MIND [νοΰς, nous, spirit], the first principle of all principles, the Supreme Idea, on which all other ideas are based; Monarch and Lawgiver of the Universe; the one substance from which all things received their beginning and essence, the first cause of all order and harmony, beauty, excellence and virtue pervading the entire universe - who is called for the sake of exaltation the Supreme Good, God (ò Θεòς) "God over all", (ò επι πασι Θεòς)". (Division. Isis, vol. 1. XI).

God is neither reason nor truth, but “their Father.” Such truth is comprehensible to those who want to know it. Realizing that Plato’s philosophy stands on a metaphysical foundation, from which myths are their main building material, Blavatsky believed the words of Plato, spoken by him in “Gorgias” and “Phaedo”, “that myths are the carrier vessels of great truths, very worthy to they were looking for them." And in them it is difficult to establish where the doctrine ends and where the real myth begins. In his work, Plato excluded the use of magic and other secret sciences and expelled all demons that were so popular in his time. Instead, he built his own reasonable theories and metaphysical constructions. And although they did not at all correspond to the inductive method of reasoning established by Aristotle, nevertheless, they satisfied everyone who comprehended the essence of things with inner vision and intuition.

Basing his doctrines on the presence of the Supreme Reason, Plato teaches that the nous, spirit, or soul of man, being “begotten by the divine Father,” is related to the deity and is capable of seeing eternal truths. This ability to contemplate reality, directly and directly, belongs only to God. Such an understanding of the soul by a philosopher, according to Blavatsky, testifies to his wisdom and insight, and meets the calling of philosophy - the love of wisdom. “Love of truth is an innate love of good; and, dominating all other desires of the soul, purifying it and introducing it to the divine, and directing every action of the individual, it raises man to participation and communion with the divine and restores in him the likeness of God.” (Isis Unveiled, vol. 1, ch. Before the Veil).

In Plato's Theaetetus it is said that the soul cannot incarnate into the form of man if it has not seen the truth. These are her memories of what she saw before, when she hovered with the deity, passing by things that were insignificant to her, although close to people. She looked only at what exists forever. This was the reason why man's nous or spirit took wings. He tried with all his might to keep these things in his mind, the contemplation of which elevated even the deity himself. By correctly using memories of a previous life, improving oneself in the mysteries, a person becomes truly perfect - initiated into divine wisdom.

Blavatsky understands why the most sublime scenes in the Mysteries always took place at night. The life of the inner spirit, according to Plato, is the death of the outer nature. And the night of the physical world means the day of the spiritual world. The mysteries symbolized the conditions of the pre-existence of spirit and soul, the fall of the latter into earthly life and Hades, the hardships of this life, the purification of the soul and its return to divine bliss, and reunification with the spirit.

Plato recognizes man as a toy of the element of necessity, says E.P., into which he enters, appearing in this world of matter. It is influenced by external reasons and these reasons daimonia, the same ones that Socrates spoke about. A happy person is someone who is physically clean and has a pure soul. If his outer soul (body) is pure, it will strengthen the second (astral body) or soul called by him supreme mortal soul, which, although subject to its own mistakes, will always be on the side of the mind against the animal needs of the body. Man's lusts arise as a result of his mortal material body. Also his illnesses. And a person sometimes considers his crimes, as if involuntary, for they arise, like diseases of the body, as a result of external causes.

Plato clearly distinguishes between these reasons and the fatalism that he recognizes does not exclude the possibility of avoiding them, even if pain, fear, anger and other feelings were given to people by necessity, “if they defeat them, they will live righteously, and if they are defeated by them, then they will live unrighteously.” . (Isis Unveiled, vol. 1 ch. 8).

“The dualistic man,” writes Blavatsky, “is the one who has been abandoned by the divine immortal spirit, leaving only the animal form and the astral body (according to Plato, the highest mortal soul), giving him over to the power of instincts, since he was defeated by all the sins inherited from matter; from now on he becomes an obedient instrument in the hands invisible- subtle entities floating in our atmosphere and ready at any moment to inspire those who were rightly abandoned by them immortal advisor, divine spirit, called "genius" by Plato. . (Ibid.).

In the Phaedrus, Plato says that when a person has finished his first life (on earth), some go to places of punishment underground. Kabbalists understand this area under the earth not as a place inside our earth, but consider it a sphere much lower in perfection compared to the earth and much more material. . (R.I. vol. 1 ch. 9).

"The Secret Doctrine" about the Human Soul

In the second volume of Isis Unveiled, Blavatsky writes that, according to Plato, there was a Supreme God, Agathon, who created in his mind the paradeigma of everything. He taught that in man there is an “immortal principle of the soul,” a mortal body and a “separate mortal soul,” which was placed in a container separate from the body; the immortal part was in the head (Timaeus, XIX, XX), and the other half was in the torso (XLIV).

Plato considered inner man, as consisting of two parts - one is always the same, formed from the same essence as the deity, and the other is mortal and perishable.

“Plato and Pythagoras,” says Plutarch, “divided the soul into two parts - rational (poetic) and unreasonable (agnoia); and that part of the human soul that is rational is eternal; for, although she is not God, yet she is the work of the eternal deity, but that part of the soul that is devoid of reason ( agnoia) - dies." . (Disclosure: Isis vol. 2, part 2, part 6).

In The Secret Doctrine, Volume 2, Blavatsky again spoke of Plato and his understanding of the soul, but in the light of the mental progress of the Universe, which is divided during each Cycle into fertile and barren periods.

In the sublunar regions, writes Blavatsky, the spheres of the various elements remain forever in perfect harmony with the Divine Nature. But parts of them, due to too close proximity to the Earth and their confusion with earthly things, sometimes agree with (Divine) Nature, sometimes they oppose it. When these circulations - which Eliphas Levi calls "currents of Astral Light" - in the universal Ether, which contains all the elements, occur in harmony with the Divine Spirit, then our Earth and all belonging to it enjoy a fruitful period. The occult powers of plants, animals and minerals magically sympathize with or agree with " higher natures“, and the Divine Soul of man is in perfect harmony with these “lower” natures.

“But during barren periods, the latter lose their magical sympathy, and the spiritual vision of the majority of humanity becomes so blinded that they lose all concept of the higher abilities of their Divine Spirit. We are in a barren period; The eighteenth century, during which the malignant fever of skepticism spread so uncontrollably, gave birth to unbelief, which it transmitted like a hereditary disease to the nineteenth century. The divine mind is clouded in man, and only his animal brain “philosophizes.” And doing only philosophizing, how can he understand the “Doctrine of the Soul”? . (Secret Doctrine, vol. 2 part 2 from 8).

A Philosopher's Remark on the (Human) Soul or Ego, when he defines it as “the composition of the same yourself and the other", Blavatsky considers true and deeply philosophical. Although he knows that this hint was misunderstood by contemporaries, who believed that the Soul was the Exhalation of God, Jehovah. This understanding is false, she says. For the Ego - the "Higher Self", when it is immersed, merged with the Divine Monad - is Man and, at the same time, it remains "the same and the other"; The angel embodied in him is identical with the Universal Mahat.” . (TD 2.part I.Comments, Identity of the Forces incarnate and their differences).

According to E.P., Plato and his school never understood the Divinity as anything other than the Supreme God. This name corresponded to their understanding of the Supreme Spiritual Power or Divine Intelligence. Plato, being an Initiate, could not believe in a personal God - a giant shadow of man. And his epithets given to God - “Monarch” and “Legislator of the Universe” have an abstract meaning, understandable to every occultist who believes, like a Christian, in the One Law that governs the World. As Plato says: “Beyond all finite existences and secondary reasons, all laws of ideas and principles there is Reason or Mind (νοΰς) primary the principle of all principles. The Highest Idea on which all other Ideas are based........... ultimatum substance, from by which all things have their being and essence. The primary and efficient Cause of all order and harmony and beauty and perfection and goodness that fill the Universe." (TD. vol. 2. art. 4).

This Mind, by virtue of its superiority and perfection, is called the “Supreme Good,” “God” ό θεός and “God the Most High.” These words refer, as Plato himself points out, not to the “Creator”, not to the “Father” of our modern monotheists, but to Ideal Abstract Reason. For, as he says: “This θεός, “God Most High,” is not truth or reason, but the Father of it" and its Primary Cause."

As we see, Blavatsky illuminates the problem of the Soul not from the point of view of Orthodoxy, but from the point of view of theosophy and spiritualism. In The Key to Theosophy, written two years before her death, Helena Blavatsky addressed this topic more fully in the form of questions and answers. In the book, Blavatsky appears under the name of Theosophist.

What does the human soul mean?

Blavatsky was asked about the sevenfold structure of man: Is this the same as the division of man into spirit, soul and body? Her answer was: “This is the ancient division of Plato. Plato was an initiate, and therefore could not go into forbidden details; but he who is acquainted with the ancient doctrine will find the seven in the various Platonic combinations of soul and spirit. Plato believed that man consists of two parts, one of which is eternal and formed from the same essence as Absoluteness, and the other is mortal and subject to destruction, having received its components from the lesser, “created” gods. As he shows, man consists of 1) a mortal body; 2) the immortal principle; and 3) “a distinct mortal variety of soul.” This is what we call, respectively, the physical man, the spiritual soul or spirit, and the animal soul (νους and ψσυχε). This division was also accepted by the Apostle Paul, another initiate, who argued that there is a spiritual body sown in mortality (the astral body or animal soul), and a spiritual body raised in an incorruptible substance. Even the Apostle James affirms the same thing when he says that the “wisdom” (of our lower soul) “is not wisdom coming down from above, but earthly, spiritual, demonic” (III, 15) (see Greek text), while the other there is "wisdom coming from above." (Key to Theosophy, VI).

Blavatsky explains what Plato teaches:

Plato, she replies, speaks of internal a person as consisting of two parts. One of them is unchangeable and eternal, and consists of the same substances, which is the Deity. The other part is mortal, it is subject to destruction. Such a correspondence between the two parts is also found in the theosophical highest triad, and in the lower four, as shown in the table in The Key to Theosophy. Plato explains that when the soul, or psyche, is in union with nous (divine spirit or substance), it does everything right and rationally. But everything turns out differently for her when she becomes attached to an anoia (a reckless or unreasonable animal soul). Then we see manas (or the soul in general) in its two aspects: clinging to anaya (called kama-rupa or “animal soul” in Esoteric Buddhism) it moves towards complete annihilation, as far as the personal ego is concerned. Connecting with nous (atma-buddhi), he merges with the immortal, indestructible Self, and then the spiritual consciousness of the person who was, becomes immortal.. (Ibid.).

Plato believes that “The soul arose before the body, and the body later and is secondary, in accordance with nature, guided by the ruling soul.” “The soul rules everything in heaven, on earth and in the sea, with the help of its own movements, the names of which are: desire, discretion, care, advice, right and wrong opinion, joy and suffering, courage and fear, love and hatred ... She herself, being a goddess, having also received a truly eternally divine mind (nous), she nurtures everything and leads to truth and bliss, but having met and come together with unreason (anoia), she leads everything in the opposite direction.” (Ibid.).

"Spencer's philosophy was written for savage tribes"

Blavatsky published such an article in the magazine “Theosophist”, No. 3 for 1879. Its purpose was to explain to its readers the idea of ​​human afterlife. This problem has affected all segments of the population of America, Europe, other countries and continents. Everyone wants to know if there is another life, does the soul die with the death of a person or is it eternal?

E.P. writes that the greatest minds of mankind have pondered this problem. Even primitive savages, not knowing any Deity, believed in the existence of spirits and idolized them. “If in Christian Russia, Wallachia, Bulgaria and Greece, the Eastern Church prescribes on the day of “All Saints” that rice and drink be placed on the graves as a sacrifice, and in “pagan” India the same pacifying gifts in the form of rice are presented to the dead, then also the poor savage New Caledonia sacrifices food to the skulls of the people he once loved." (In search of the occult. M. Sfera, 1996).

According to Herbert Spencer, she says, the Soul is present both in the completely preserved body of the deceased, and in its individual parts. Hence the belief in relics. Blavatsky disputes this statement of the philosopher. She, like most Theosophists and Christians, does not believe in the dogma of priests: what is presented by priests in golden crayfish as the relics of a holy saint is not perceived by believers as their souls. The skull, arm or leg bones cannot have the soul of the deceased. People do not worship these parts, but only revere these relics as something that once belonged to those who are considered holy. Touching these relics is considered a godly deed, and they have a miraculous effect.

Therefore, Spencer's definition for Blavatsky is incorrect. Likewise, Professor Max Müller, in his "Introduction to the Science of Religion," proves by numerous examples that the human brain from the very beginning entertained "a vague hope of life after death." This message is good for Spencer. Without reporting anything new on this issue, he indulges in all sorts of nonsense. "He only points out the inherent uncivilized peoples the ability to transform the forces of nature into gods and demons. He ends his lecture on Ural-Altai legends and the universality of belief in ghosts and spirits with the simple remark that “the worship of the spirits of the dead is, Maybe, the most common form superstitions all over the world. (Ibid.).

Thus, writes Blavatsky, wherever we turn for a philosophical solution to this mystery, either to theologians who themselves believe in miracles and teach the supernatural, or to the schools of modern thought - opponents of everything supernatural in nature, or to the philosophy of extreme positivism, we have not received a satisfactory response from anyone. E.P. believes that Spencer's philosophy was written for savage tribes who understand nothing of philosophy, religion or science. Spencer is unable to resolve the contradictions in science and religion. “We are now dealing with the beliefs of twenty millions of modern spiritualists,” she writes, “our brethren living in the dazzling splendor of the enlightened nineteenth century. These people do not neglect any of the discoveries of modern science; Moreover, many of them are themselves among the outstanding scientists who made these discoveries. At the same time, are they less subject to the same “form of superstition,” if we consider it superstition, than primitive man? At least their interpretations of physical phenomena - whenever they were accompanied by accidents that led them to believe that physical force is moved by the mind - are often exactly the same as those that arose in the imagination of man of ancient, pre-civilized times. (Ibid.).

Blavatsky read from Herbert Spencer that the savage and the child think of a person’s shadow as his soul. And that the Greenlanders believe that a person's shadow is "one of his two souls, the one that leaves the body at night." The inhabitants of the island of Fiji call the shadow "a dark spirit, different from the other, which every person possesses." All this convincingly shows, she says, that no matter how incorrect and contradictory the conclusions may be, the premises on which they are based are not fiction. An object must exist before the human mind can think about it. Interesting information she also learned from Professor Muller. Depicting the development of the idea of ​​the soul, and showing how mythology penetrates into the realm of religion, he says that when man first wanted to express in words the difference between the body and what is inside it - he called it breath. At first it meant the vital principle, distinct from the body itself, and then the incorporeal, immortal part of man - his soul, his mind, his “I”. When a person dies, we also say that he gave his soul to God, but soul originally meant spirit, and spirit meant breath.

In one of her many works by Andrew Jackson Davis, once considered the greatest American clairvoyant and known as the “Seer of Poughkeepsie,” Blavatsky found a beautiful illustration of the faith of the Nicaraguan Indians. His book Death and Life After Death contained an engraved frontispiece showing an old woman on her deathbed. The illustration was called "Formation of the Spiritual Body." A luminous outline rose from the head of the deceased - her own transformed form.

Some Hindus believe, writes Blavatsky, that the spirit sits on the eaves of the house in which it parted with the body for ten days. Since he can bathe and drink, the Hindus make two bowls from plantain leaves and place them on the cornice. One of them is filled with milk and the other with water. "It is believed that on the first day the deceased receives the head; on the second day - ears, eyes and nose; on the third - arms, chest and neck; on the fourth - the middle parts of the body; on the fifth - legs and feet; on the sixth - vital organs ; on the seventh - bones, bone marrow, veins and arteries; on the eighth - nails, hair and teeth; on the ninth - all missing members, organs and physical strength; on the tenth day the new body is tormented by hunger and thirst." (Ibid.)

The ancients and idolaters, the Egyptians and Peruvians, writes Blavatsky, not only thought that the spirit or soul of the deceased lived in the mummy, but that the corpse itself was conscious. A similar belief is widespread in our time among Orthodox Christians of the Greek and Roman churches. It would be wrong to blame the Egyptians for placing their embalmed dead on the table, or the pagan Peruvians for carrying the corpse of their parent through the fields so that he could see and evaluate the condition of the harvest.

Blavatsky gives an example from the life of Mexican Christians. Under the direction of the priest, she writes, they dress the dead in magnificent outfits and decorate them with flowers, and if the deceased is a woman, they even blush her cheeks. The body is then seated on a chair standing on a large table, from where the eerie dead man seems to preside over the mourners sitting around the table, who eat and drink all night, play cards and dice, inquiring from the deceased about their chances.

And another example from Russia. “In Russia there is a custom of placing on the forehead of the deceased a long strip of gilded and ornamented paper, called Venchik (crown, crown), on which in bright letters a prayer is written. This prayer is something like a letter of recommendation, with which the parish priest sends the deceased to his patron saint, placing the deceased under his protection. (Parting words to the immortals).

And Basque Catholics write letters to their deceased friends and relatives, addressing them to heaven, purgatory and hell. The name of the deceased is indicated on the envelope and, having placed them in the coffin of the deceased, they ask him to deliver the letters to the afterlife, promising the messenger, as a reward, to order masses for the repose of his soul.

Together with the Apostle Paul, Blavatsky exclaims; "O death, where is your sting? Oh hell, where is your victory!" And he says that belief in the afterlife of ancestors is the most ancient and most time-honored of all beliefs.

Among educated people, Blavatsky believes, only modern spiritualists strive for constant communication with the dead. She cites some nations as examples. Hindus, for example, believe that the pure spirit of a person who dies reconciled with his own fate will never return back in the flesh to plague mortals. They believe that only bhuts - souls who left life unsatisfied, not satisfying their earthly desires, these are vicious men and women - become "earthbound." Unable to rise to moksha, they are forced to remain in the earthly realms either until their next incarnation or until complete destruction. Thus, they take every opportunity to harass people, especially weak women.

However, the return or appearance of these spirits is considered so undesirable that Hindus use all possible and impossible methods to prevent it. Even when we're talking about about the most sacred feeling - the love of a mother for a child, they do everything to prevent this. There is a common belief among some that a woman who dies during childbirth will definitely return to guard her child. Therefore, returning home from the ghat, after committing the body to the fire, all funeral participants thickly sprinkle mustard seeds on the road from the funeral pyre to the house of the deceased.

Summing up her article, Blavatsky asks: how could the belief in an afterlife become so ingrained in each of us, over the course of centuries, if it is only a vague and unreal concept of the intellect that arose among primitive man? Of all the scientists she knew, the only correct answer to everything was given by Professor Max Muller. In his work - "Introduction to the Science of Religion", he did not spare anyone, not even their faith, calling it a great superstition. With one blow he cut the Gordian knot which Herbert Spencer and his school had so tightly tied under the chariot of the “Unknowable.” He showed that "there is a philosophical discipline which studies the conditions of sensual or intuitive knowledge" and also "another philosophical discipline which studies the conditions of rational or conceptual knowledge" and then defines a third faculty: to comprehend the Infinite not only in religion, but in everything that exists. Neither feeling nor reason is able to overcome this force, while it is capable of defeating both reason and feeling.

Soul and Spirit of Apollonius of Tyana

In fact, Blavatsky has more than a dozen articles that discuss the problem of the human soul, spirit and body. And all of them are aimed at one thing: to enlighten a person in matters of life and death, to inform about Karma and reincarnation, about the immortality of the soul, about the Spirit and other aspects of his life. We can talk about these articles endlessly. We decided to dwell on one more of them - this is “The Magical Evocation of the Spirit of Apollonius of Tyana”, in which Blavatsky came close to the problem of soul and spirit and told about all the secrets of the spiritualists. Including about the astral light, in which images of people and objects are stored. Blavatsky reveals the so-called mysteries of necromancy, which are equally real, no matter how disputed. This topic is very close to Kabbalists and necromancers, who are able to summon the souls of dead people. Her article was based on the testimony of two people: Isaac ben Solomon Loria, and Eliphas Levi Zahed, a Jewish kabbalist, a specialist in occult knowledge, who summoned and saw the soul of the deceased Apollonius of Tyana. These individuals refer to their sessions as “visions,” “intuitions,” and “glory lights.”

First, Blavatsky examines the Jewish book “On the Cycle of Souls,” from which it is clear that souls are of three kinds: daughters of Adam, daughters of angels and daughters of sin. There are also three kinds of spirits: enslaved, wandering and free spirits. Souls are usually sent in pairs. There are also souls of men who are born bachelors, and their couples are held captive by Lilith and Naemah, queen of the Strigi, (undeveloped elemental spirits)- these are those souls who must atone for their recklessness with a vow of celibacy. For example, when a person refuses the love of a woman from childhood, his destined spouse becomes a slave to the demons of lust. Souls grow and multiply in heaven just as bodies do on earth. Sinless souls are the offspring of a union of angels. The author reports that only those who have descended from heaven can ascend to heaven. Therefore, after death, only the divine spirit that revived a person returns to heaven, leaving two corpses on the earth and in the atmosphere. One is earthly and elemental; the other is airy and starry; one - already lifeless, the other - still animated by the universal movement of the soul of the world (astral light), doomed to die gradually and be absorbed by the astral forces that produced it. The earthly corpse is visible to everyone. Another dead man - invisible to anyone. It can only be seen with the help of astral or translucent light, which transmits its images to the nervous system. The signal is then applied to the eyes, allowing us to see images and read words preserved and recorded in the book of living life.

“If a person lived well, his astral corpse or spirit evaporates like pure incense, ascending to higher areas; but if he committed atrocities, the astral body, holding him captive, again seeks objects of passion and longs to resume its life. It torments young girls in their sleep, bathes in the vapors of spilled blood, swirls around the places where the pleasures of its life took place; guards the treasures he has buried, exhausts himself with fruitless attempts to create material organs for himself and live forever. But the stars attract him and absorb him; he feels how his mind is weakening, how his memory is fading, how his whole being is dissolving... his vices appear to him and pursue him in the form of monsters; they pounce on him and devour him... The unfortunate man loses one by one all his members, which served to satisfy his vicious appetites; then he dies a second time - and forever, for now he loses his individuality and memory. Souls called to live, but not yet completely purified, remain for some time in captivity in the astral body, in which they are purified by odic light, which seeks to assimilate them into itself and dissolve them. And so, in order to get rid of this body, suffering souls sometimes enter the bodies of living people and are held there, in a state that Kabbalists call embryonic". (The other side of life. M.Sfera, 2005).

These are the air phantoms summoned during necromancy. Blavatsky calls them dead or dying entities with which mediums come into contact during evocations. They can only speak to us through the ringing in our ears produced by nervous tremors. They reflect our own thoughts or dreams.

But in order to see these strange forms, the author of the book invites us to put ourselves in a special state bordering on sleep or death. One must magnetize oneself so as to achieve a certain degree of lucid and awake somnambulism. Then necromancy achieves real results, and magical evocations are able to show real ghosts.

In the magical intermediary, which is the astral light, according to the author of the book “On the Cycle of Souls,” all imprints of things, all images created either by their radiations or reflections are preserved. It is in this light that dreams appear to us. It is this light that intoxicates the nervously ill and causes their weak minds to show the most fantastic chimeras. To get rid of illusions in this light, you need to throw away the reflections with a powerful effort of will and attract only the rays to yourself. To dream in reality means to see in the astral light the orgies of the coven of witches, which sorcerers talked about during trials. The preparation and supplies needed to achieve the result were terrible, but the visions were real. People saw, heard and touched the most disgusting, fantastic, simply incredible figures.

“In the spring of 1854,” writes another author, Eliphas Levi, “I went to London to avoid some family troubles and devote yourself entirely to science. I had letters of recommendation to famous people interested in supernatural phenomena. Having met some, I found in them a lot of courtesy and just as much indifference and frivolity. They immediately demanded miracles from me, like from a charlatan. I was slightly discouraged, because, to tell the truth, although I had nothing against initiating others into the secrets of ceremonial magic, I myself was always afraid of illusions and overwork; In addition, these ceremonies require very expensive supplies that are difficult to find.

So, I plunged into the study of the highest Kabbalah and completely stopped thinking about the English adepts, when one day, entering my room, I discovered a letter addressed to my name. The envelope contained: half a card, on which I immediately recognized the sign of Solomon's seal, and a small piece of paper on which it was written in pencil: “Tomorrow, at three o’clock, near Westminster Abbey, you will be presented with the other half of this card.” I went on this strange date. The carriage stood at the appointed place. I held my half of the card in my hand with apparent indifference; a servant approached and, opening the carriage door, gave me a sign. In the carriage sat a lady in black; her hat was covered with a thick veil; She motioned for me to sit down next to her, while simultaneously showing me the other half of the card I had received. The footman closed the door, the carriage moved off; the lady lifted her veil, and I saw a person with extremely lively and penetrating eyes. “Sir,” she said to me with a strong English accent, “I know that the law of secrecy is strictly observed by the adepts; Sir Bulwer-Lytton's friend, who saw you, knows that experiments were demanded of you, but you refused to satisfy this curiosity. Perhaps you do not have the necessary items: I will show you a complete magic cabinet; but I demand from you in advance the strictest secrecy. If you do not give me such a promise, then I will order the coachman to take you home.”

I made the promise required of me and did not mention the name, rank, or place of residence of this lady, who, as I learned later, was an initiate, although not the first, but still of a very high degree. We had several long conversations and she kept insisting on the need for practical experiments to complete the initiation. She showed me a collection of magical robes and instruments, even lent me several interesting books that I needed - in short, she decided to try to carry out an experiment on summoning a spirit, for which I prepared for twenty-one days, conscientiously performing all the rituals indicated in the thirteenth chapter " Ritual."

“I am recounting this event as it happened.”

“Everything was ready by July 24; our goal was to summon the ghost of the divine Apollonius and ask him about two secrets - one concerned me, the other interested this lady. She originally intended to participate in the evocation along with her close friend; but at the last moment her courage failed her, and since magical rituals certainly require the presence of three or one, I was left alone. The office prepared for calling was located in a small tower; it contained four concave mirrors and something like an altar, upper part which, made of white marble, was surrounded by a chain of magnetized iron. On the white marble was carved and gilded the sign of a pentagram; the same sign was painted in various colors on a fresh white sheep's skin lying under the altar. In the middle of the marble table stood a small brass brazier with elm and laurel coals; another brazier stood in front of me on a tripod.

I was dressed in a white dress, similar to the attire of our Catholic priests, but more spacious and longer; on my head lay a wreath of verbena leaves woven into a gold chain. In one hand I held a naked sword, in the other - the Ritual. With the help of the necessary substances prepared in advance, I lit two fires and began - first quietly, then gradually raising my voice - to pronounce the invocations of the Ritual. The smoke spread, the flame flared up, causing the objects it illuminated to dance, and then went out. White smoke slowly rose above the marble altar; I thought I felt a slight earthquake shock; my ears were ringing; my heart was beating fast. I threw several branches and aromas into the braziers and, when the fire flared up, I clearly distinguished a human figure - larger than natural size - in front of the altar, which began to dissolve, and then completely disappeared. I again began to pronounce the invocations and stood in the circle previously drawn between the altar and the tripod; then I saw that the disk of the mirror facing me, standing behind the altar, began to gradually illuminate, and a whitish figure was outlined in it, gradually increasing in size and, it seemed, gradually approaching.

Closing my eyes, I called Apollonius three times and, when I opened them, stood before me a man completely wrapped in a kind of shroud, which seemed to me more gray than white; his face was thin, sad and beardless, which did not at all correspond to my idea of ​​Apollonius. I felt extremely cold, and when I opened my mouth to ask the ghost a question, I could not utter a sound. Then I put my hand on the sign of the pentagram and pointed the tip of the sword at it, mentally ordering him not to frighten me and to obey. Suddenly the image became less clear and suddenly disappeared. I ordered him to return, after which I felt something like a breath near me, something touched my hand holding the sword, and immediately the whole hand went numb. It seemed to me that the sword offended the spirit, and I stuck it in the circle next to me. Immediately the human figure reappeared; but I felt such weakness in all my limbs, such exhaustion, that after taking a couple of steps I sat down. Once in the chair, I instantly fell into a deep slumber, accompanied by visions of which, when I came to my senses, only a vague memory remained.

For several days my arm remained numb and painful. The ghost did not speak to me, but it seemed to me that the questions that I was going to ask him were resolved by themselves in my head. To the lady’s question, my inner voice answered: “He’s dead!” (it was about a person about whom she wanted to have news). As for myself, I wanted to know whether reconciliation was possible between the two persons about whom I was thinking; and the same inner echo mercilessly answered: “They died!”

I am stating this event exactly as it happened, without forcing anyone to believe it. This experiment had a completely inexplicable effect on me. I was no longer the same...

I repeated the experiment twice within a few days. As a result of subsequent invocations, two Kabbalistic secrets were revealed to me, which, if they became known to everyone, could in the shortest possible time change the foundations and laws of the entire society.

I will not explain by virtue of what physiological laws I saw and touched; I only claim that I really saw and felt, that I saw absolutely clearly and clearly, in reality - and this is enough to prove the effectiveness of magical ceremonies...

Before concluding this chapter, I must mention the curious belief of some Kabalists who distinguish between visible death and real death and think that they rarely coincide. In their opinion, most people are buried alive - and, conversely, many whom we consider alive are actually dead. So, incurable insanity, in their opinion, is incomplete, but real death in which the earthly body, quite instinctively, is controlled by the astral or sidereal body. When the human soul experiences a strong shock, without being able to overcome it, it separates from the body and leaves in its place an animal soul, or, in other words, an astral body, which makes of such finished people something, in some way even less alive than an animal . Such dead people can be easily recognized by their lack of warmth and morality, for they have completely faded away; they are neither good nor bad - they are dead. These creatures - poisonous mushrooms of the human race - absorb as much as they can of the vital forces of the living - that is why their approach paralyzes the soul and freezes the heart. Such undead-like creatures are in every way similar to vampires, those terrible creatures that are said to get up at night and suck the blood from the healthy bodies of sleeping people. In fact, aren’t there people around whom we feel less smart, less kind, and often even less honest? Doesn’t their approach kill faith and enthusiasm, don’t they tie you to themselves with your own weaknesses, enslave you with your own bad inclinations and force you to slowly, in constant torment, morally die? These are the dead whom we take for the living; These are the vampires whom we regard as friends! .(Magical invocation of the spirit of Apollonius of Tyana).

"Helena Blavatsky explains..."

In our time, Blavatsky writes, so little is known about ancient magic, its meaning, history, possibilities, its results and adepts, that she cannot leave all of the above without explanation. The ceremonies, with all their attributes, described in such detail by Levi, are in fact designed for simpletons and uninformed people. Levi, as an experienced occultist and consummate spiritualist, driven by a desire for glory, of course, exaggerates the importance of minor details, and speaks only in passing about the most important things. In fact, the Eastern Kabalists need no preparations, no costumes, no devices, no tiaras, no weapons: all these are the attributes of the Jewish Kabala, which bears the same relation to its humble Chaldean prototype as the rituals of the Roman Catholic Church bear to the humble rites Christ and his apostles. In the hands of a true adept of the East, a simple bamboo stick with seven knots, says Blavatsky, complemented by untold wisdom and iron willpower, is capable of summoning spirits and performing miracles, confirmed by numerous witnesses. On session As described by Levi, when the ghost reappeared, the brave researcher saw and heard something that he completely kept silent about in his report on the first experiment, and which he only hinted at in his story. E.P. knows this from people whose veracity she does not doubt.

Touching on the topic of reincarnation, Blavatsky admits that she is often asked: how can she prove that a person really lives many lives, and that such a thing as reincarnation even exists? Her answer is: “1) the testimony of soothsayers, sages and prophets of the entire endless series of human cycles; 2) a mass of conclusions that would seem quite convincing even to a layman. Of course, evidence in this category cannot be called absolutely reliable, although many people have been sent to the gallows on the basis of mere conclusions. As Locke says: “To draw inferences is to conventionally recognize some proposition as true, and on its basis to declare another proposition to be true.” Therefore, everything depends on the nature and credibility of the first assumption. Fatalists, for example, can offer as the initial truth their doctrine of Predestination - a creed dear to their hearts, according to which every person is predestined by the will of our “Merciful Heavenly Father” either to writhe in the flames of hell, or to play on the “golden harp”, becoming an incorporeal feathered principle ".. (Karma, or the law of causes and consequences).

The human soul, what is it like?

The doctrine of the soul is also discussed in detail in the book “Orthodox Anthropology” by priest Andrei Lorgus. It is an irrefutable fact of creation and immortality of the soul. The teaching covers psychological, bodily-physiological and mystical reality. This fact is not only endowed with a soul, but has itself become a “living soul,” transferring its essence from ontology to the realm of existence. The Bible has several meanings for the concept of soul. The soul in it is understood as human life and is the antithesis of death.

To be alive means to have a soul and to be a soul. And vice versa, to “give up” the soul, to “lose” the soul means to die.

Gen. 19:17: ...save your soul, -says the Lord to righteous Lot, lest you perish; Gen.35:18: ...her soul went out of her, for she died; Comrade 14:11: ...his soul left him on his bed; ...and the son buried him with honor; Job 9:21: ...I do not want to know my soul, I despise my life. In the Bible we often see variations on the theme of death in terms of the separation of the soul from the body:

Job 33:22: And his soul draweth near to the grave, and his life unto death; Job. 33:28: He has delivered my soul from the grave, and my life sees the light. And we see that the soul seems to be “dying”; it is approaching death, its grave. But this does not mean at all that we are talking about the complete death of the soul. Approaching death does not deny the immortality of the soul. There are many allegories and allegories in the Bible. But what is important in understanding the term “soul” is that it primarily includes earthly existence person. Therefore, when it is said “soul”, it means “to live”, “to be alive”. Here are some examples: Ps.21:21: ...Deliver my soul from the sword; 30:14: ...they are plotting to pluck out my soul; 62:10: ...they seek the destruction of my soul. We find the same meaning in the New Testament: Matthew 2:20: ...those who sought the soul of the Child died;

Luke 12:20: ...this very night your soul will be taken from you; Acts 15:26: Men who gave up their souls for the name of the Lord.

In the Bible, the understanding of the concept of Soul is very different. Sometimes it is said about a person himself that he is a soul. Most often this meaning is conveyed in quantitative terms: Gen.46:15: All the souls of his sons and daughters are thirty-three; Numbers 31:28: ...one soul out of five hundred; Deuteronomy 10:22: Your fathers came into Egypt with seventy [five] souls; Numbers 31:28: ...take tribute to the Lord, one soul out of five hundred” (i.e. out of five hundred souls).

This meaning of the soul is understood by the majority of Orthodox peoples. In particular, in Russia, serfs and soldiers were considered souls. Even Chichikov bought “dead souls”, not people. And the people have become accustomed to such expressions: “Five souls came into my house.”

It is not difficult to notice that the word soul, in a purely existential understanding, is found most often when talking about the death of a person, when the soul must leave its mortal body.

As a separate entity, the soul is known through death. This is our experience in this matter. Where is life at in full swing, where everything is good, and the human person is satisfied with his life, there the soul permeates the entire existence of human nature. It is impossible to separate it from the body, to imagine it separately. And only when a person has died, when he is no longer in this world, then a terrible picture appears before us: a lifeless body and an anxious, restless soul that has left it. Gen.35:18: And when the soul was gone out of her, for she was dying; Deuteronomy 4:15: Keep it firmly in your souls that you saw no image in that day; Deut.10:12: ...with all your heart and with all your soul; Ps.6:4: ...my soul is greatly shaken. The author of “Orthodox Anthropology” distinguishes the entire sphere of the human soul and his soul itself, as an ontological entity, created and immortal. And, indeed, we see that the soul is sometimes associated with the breath of a person, which is related to his soul. Genesis 2:7: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.. In this case, the word “breathed” is associated with the word “created.” He did not create with his hands, but “breathed in”, “created”, gave him the “breath of life” and man became a “living soul”.

The Bible contains expressions such as “Soul of the Lord,” “Soul of Christ,” and “My Soul.”

Biblical commentators attribute these meanings to metaphorical anthropocentrisms that describe the actions of God and interpret human actions. The metaphors “soul of the Lord”, “My soul” are understood as an expression of the relationship between the Lord and man, as an evaluative attitude towards man. Isaiah 1:14: ...My soul hateth your feasts; 6:8: Take heed, O Jerusalem, lest My soul depart from thee.

“In the Bible, Christ is a perfect man and a perfect God. According to the Chalcedonian dogma, He has a human soul, that is, a created essence. Therefore, where we are talking about the soul of the God-man, Christ, the soul is always concrete, real and has nothing to do with myths. It is a concrete anthropological concept. It has the same meanings as “the soul of man.” (Ibid.).

If we want to define the concept of the soul, according to the Bible, then it will stretch in breadth and depth. And the soul will begin to be understood by us as a complex kingdom, as a “city of the inner man” and as a created essence. Sometimes it appears as a substance with all its properties; like breathing, like a complex unity of abilities, forces and parts.

The soul, says the Bible, is a created essence, in contrast to the body. She is “blown in” by the breath of the Creator and her essence is different from everything else. In all of Creation we will not find another entity such as the soul. Therefore, it is unique and inimitable. " The soul is not a body or a property... it is an incorporeal essence" (Nemesius of Emesus); "The soul is itself a completely immaterial substance" (Origen; "The soul... has life not only as energy, but also as an essence, for it lives on its own" (Gregory Palamas); "The soul is a created entity, a living, intelligent entity" (Gregory of Nyssa).

Definitions of the essence of the soul often assert its immateriality. All the ancient chroniclers emphasize this. The essence of the soul, says priest Andrei Lorgus, means the affirmation of several categories of human existence - the soul lives independently, i.e. can live independently of the body, the soul is of a different origin than the body, the soul is immortal by creation. The soul is understood as movability, the breath of life, the essence of God and other definitions. Church historians write about it differently: “The soul is God’s breath” (St. Gregory the Theologian); “The soul is the breath of God” (Tertullian); “The soul itself is not some part of the essence of God; but by this inspiration its nature is designated, since the rational soul is spirit” (Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus); “The soul is a STREAM of the infinite light of the Divine...” (Gregory Palamas).

Thus, comparing the soul with breath reveals its origin, “inspiration,” its spiritual essence, easily mobile and fluid.

What do the properties of the essence of the soul mean, and what are they? Priest Andrei Logrus refers to them as immateriality, immateriality, immortality, or indestructibility, rationality and literature. Christian theologian Gregory of Nyssa finds in the soul many God-like properties: “In our soul we can see: the trinity of Hypostases, the unity of nature, simultaneity, inseparability, inaccessibility, non-chosenness, uncontemplation, ungeneracy, birth, procession, creativity, industry, judgment, inviolability, incorporeality , incorruptibility, indestructibility, immortality, eternity, inexplicability, splendor." In another place, the same theologian speaks about the properties of the essence of the soul in a completely different way: “The spiritual and immortal essence of your soul, nameless and unknown...”

And Theodoret of Cyrrhus calls the human soul immortal: " We say that the soul is simple, reasonable and immortal"(Theodoret of Cyrrhus). Thus, the essence of the soul is original, immortal, rational, spiritual and non-material. Immateriality, as we know, is close in its meaning to the most complex problem of the corporeality of the soul. Although on this issue - the immateriality of the soul, its corporeality and incorporeality, There are endless discussions. This question is further complicated by the fact that there are so many different concepts about it, in addition to corporeality and incorporeality, we will also demonstrate this with specific examples.

About incorporeality: “Souls, in comparison with mortal bodies, are incorporeal” (Irenaeus of Lyons); “All souls and all intelligent natures... are incorporeal by nature” (Origen); "... The soul, as something immaterial and incorporeal..." (Gregory of Nyssa

Soul image: “The souls themselves have the image of the body” (Irenaeus of Lyons); “...The eyes... of the enlightened see the image of the soul, but few Christians contemplate it” (Macarius of Egypt); "...Does the soul have a form [var.: appearance]? Has a form [appearance] and an image similar to that of an angel" (He); “...Souls... have the image of a person, so that they can be recognized” (Irenaeus of Lyons)

One can consider the image or form of the soul as a kind of “subtle” or “smart” body of the soul. “Body” - in the sense of some “outline”, “portrait”. Indeed, two questions arise in connection with image or form. First, does the soul have a place of residence and is this place limited? Secondly, if the soul has an image, then whose image is the image of God or the image of man, i.e. individual nature?

Where does the soul reside?

In the Old Testament, the word Soul appears 471 times: 20 times as a person, 17 times as a Spirit, 15 times as a Mind and the same number of times as a heart. The New Testament speaks of the Soul 58 times. And about the Spirit - 280 times. There is no consensus on where the Soul resides in the books of either the Old or New Testament. Most scientists and thinkers believe that it resides throughout the body. Psychologists are trying to prove that our soul is a network that entangles the entire human nervous system, from the brain to spinal cord and further. Everything important is located in certain (mostly subcortical) parts of the brain. Through the nerve pathways of the spinal cord, the soul responds emotionally throughout the body, in its various parts and organs, including the heart - it is the heart that aches when it’s bad, and rejoices when something works out and when it’s good. Christian thinkers have their own opinion on this matter. But even among them there is no unity as such. Here is the opinion of Tertullian and other religious historians: “The soul has an invisible body, has its own appearance, a boundary” (Tertulian);; “The angel and the soul, being incorporeal, do not occupy space, but are not omnipresent... therefore, they are in the containing and embracing everything, being limited accordingly” (Gregory Palamas); “The soul is connected with the body at certain points, but penetrates the whole body, has its shape, and therefore is called the subtle body in ancient church anthropology.” (Ignatius Brianchaninov).

By defining the concept and meaning of the Soul, we deliberately show a different point of view on such a pressing problem and it is purely Christian.

In the 19th century, a dispute arose in Russian theology between Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov and Bishop Theophan the Recluse about the understanding of the soul. Theophan the Recluse, in his work “The Soul and the Angel,” criticized Ignatius Brianchaninov’s book “The Word on Death,” which contains the following words: “Bishop Ignatius wanted to prove that the soul really suffers torment for sins after death. But for this he had to prove that these torments were real, sensual. And if the soul is completely immaterial and incorporeal, then how does it feel these torments? And the saint unfolds before the reader a detailed argument from the arguments of reason and the testimonies of the fathers and lives of saints that the soul has its own subtle but material body. According to the consciousness of that time, he called it the “etheric body”.

In response, Theophan the Recluse, no less cogently, but more based on Orthodox theology, argued the opposite: “Angels are invisible, disembodied spirits that make up the mental world... Souls are also spiritual and rational beings, invisible and immaterial... Materiality is resolutely denied in the nature of souls and angels.”.

As we see, in Christianity this difficult question remained unresolved, and it has not been resolved to this day. We are not entirely sure that it will be solved in subsequent generations, although, as always, there are exceptions. Nevertheless, let us continue our story about the image of the soul. The soul, according to Irenaeus of Lyon, Macarius the Great and other church thinkers, has the image of a body, or the image of a person. But there are other points of view: “Our invisible soul, created in His image...” (Anastasius Sinait); "In our soul we can see: the trinity of the Hypostases, the unity of nature, simultaneity, inseparability<...>and many more properties, as we have already seen before, which indicate not the body at all, but the image of God." (Gregory of Nyssa); This means that the image of the soul cannot be understood unambiguously. In creation, the soul receives the image of God, the likeness of heaven, heavenly angels, and other images, but in the process of life its features acquire the image of a living person. This image is constantly changing, due to human life itself: it gravitates either towards good or towards evil.

If we summarize what has been said about corporeality and the essence of the soul, then it should be noted that, despite the ambiguity of this concept, there is something in common between them that unites them and gives hope that this problem will be solvable in the future.

Origin of the soul

In the vast topic of the soul, says Lorgus, two questions should be distinguished. The first is the doctrine of the origin of the souls of the first people - Adam and Eve. The second is about the origin of all human souls, regardless of race and skin color, in a word, all the descendants of Adam. The book of Genesis, considered the main revelation about the creation of man, says: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2-7). We draw the attention of readers to the fact that the soul of a person and his body are created differently. The body is “from the dust of the earth,” and the soul is from the breath of God. In this difference, the holy fathers saw a distinctive feature of the human soul, its divine originality.

“God breathed into man’s face the breath of life, and man became a living soul, but the breath of life is incorporeal” (St. Irenaeus of Lyons); “Don’t you find it absurd that you, people who have become the creation of God and have received a soul from Him... are slaves to another ruler?” (Clement of Alexandria); “Moses says that the body was created from the earth... but the intelligent soul was breathed from above into the face from God.”(He) As we see, the holy fathers’ adherence to the Book of Genesis is almost word for word. But here two questions arise: are the soul and body created at the same time, and if not, then what is the meaning of this - hierarchical or some other? Saint John Chrysostom believed that the soul was “blown in” later:

"...In... the formation of a person, the body appears first, then the soul, which is more precious..."

And Theodoret of Cyrrhus considered them a simultaneous creation: "The soul was created together with the body..."

Isaac the Syrian expressed the same idea: “It is impossible for the soul to come into being and be born without the perfect formation of the body with its members”; and Gregory of Nyssa: “...It is wrong to think that the soul occurred before the body, or that the body was created without a soul.”

According to tradition ancient philosophy, the soul was understood as both a quality and an essence. If we decipher these concepts, we can assume that as an essence, the soul was created earlier and enters the body later, and as the life of the body it appears along with it. Therefore, the concepts of “later”, “together” or “before” have a hierarchical meaning among the holy fathers.

The hierarchy of human structure, writes A. Lorgus, can be traced in both biblical and patristic anthropology. The superiority of the soul is not just essential, but also functional, it includes such qualities as an owner has in relation to his property, and a master has in relation to a slave.

As for Adam, all anthropology is clear that his soul was created by God. The Bible says nothing about Eve’s soul, but the entire patristic tradition attributes her soul to the same creative act of the Lord as Adam’s.

The origin of the souls of ordinary people

The situation is completely different with the solution to the question of the origin of the souls of ordinary people. There are a lot of unclear points in it. There are three hypotheses about the origin of souls in the Bible. The first is the pre-existence of souls, the second is their creation by God, and the third is their birth from the souls of their parents.

To resolve the question of the origin of human souls, neither biblical science nor the science of the 21st century has sufficient knowledge. The question remains open for new generations. Just guesses, assumptions, fortune-telling on coffee grounds. Neither we nor Lorgus have any desire to waste time on empty hypotheses.

Now we move on to the key issue of the books of the Old and New Testaments - the precedence of souls and their life after the death of a person. Let us inform you that the problem of the preexistence of souls is directly related to the Alexandrian scientist Origen, who in his books proved that the soul finds a place for itself in other generations. For such audacity, his teaching was rejected by Orthodox anthropology and the church, as hostile and instilling heretical thoughts in Christians. For his bold statements and independence of thought, Orthodox churchmen feared him more than a fierce beast. It turns out that they were not afraid in vain, because his teaching is inextricably linked with Eastern wisdom, with theosophy and religious systems of the East. Origen did not himself deduce the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls. The Greek philosophy of Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus and their followers argued that souls exist before bodies, and that countless numbers of them are imprisoned in some unknown place, from which they are expelled into different bodies. The Gnostics, Carpocrates, Caians, Antitants and Eutychites, as well as Pradicus, Epiphanes and other thinkers, joined this teaching with great joy. But the main authority on this teaching was Origen himself:

“Before the [beginning of] times, everyone had pure minds - demons, souls, and angels. There remained souls who sinned not so much as to become demons, but also not so little as to become angels. So, [God] created the existing the world, and united the soul with the body for punishment... It is clear that everyone is punished according to how they sinned: the demon did one thing, the soul - another, the angel - a third. And if this were not so, the souls did not exist before [bodies. ], then why are there blind people among newborns, although they have not sinned, while others were born without any defect? ​​But it is obvious that certain sins preceded the souls, as a result of which each [of them] receives its due... that is why it is named? body "body" (demas), that the soul is attached to the body." There is one interesting feature in this paragraph. This is "...Everyone had pure minds - demons, souls, and angels." Everything is accurate and according to Orthodox scripture. Christian historians liked it. Isaac the Syrian, who had mastered the writings of Origen well, wrote: “Souls... see these three orders, that is, the lower order of them [demons], the higher order of them [angels], and each other.” The saint clearly saw “three ranks” in a homogeneous being. “Angels are invisible, disembodied spirits that make up the intelligent world... Souls are also spiritual and rational beings, invisible and immaterial.” The kinship of souls, angels and demons, became not only for Origen, but also for holy Christian ascetics, an ontological affirmation of the human soul. But the essence of Origen’s teaching was different. This is the existence of the human soul, the fall of his soul before its entry into the body. This is where the breakup occurred.

"In a kind of state there lives a certain tribe of souls, living according to the [laws of] bodily life in the subtle and easily mobile [quality] of their nature in communication with everything around them. The signs [of recognition] of evil and good are established there. And the soul that resides in good, remains with a body that has not experienced intercourse. Souls that, due to some inclination towards evil, lose [their] plumage, end up in bodies: first in human ones, [but] then, due to so much communication with dumb animal passions, they become dead. . and further descend to the most natural and insensitive life."

And further: “If the soul of man, which, being human, is, of course, lower [than angelic souls], does not seem to be created together with the body, but invested [into the body] in a special way and from the outside, this applies even more so to animate creatures called celestial. As for people, how can we consider the soul of his brother who was still in his mother’s womb, that is, Jacob, to be created at the same time as the body, or how to consider the soul of one who, while still in his mother’s womb, was filled with the Holy Spirit to be created together with the body? How then was the soul created with the body... of whom it is said that he was marked by God before his formation in the mother's womb... Would it not seem to anyone that God does not fill some with the Spirit according to judgment and not according to merit? He sanctifies [them] not according to merit! And how can we flee from the voice of the one who said: “Is there really unrighteousness with God? No way!" [Rom. 9:14] But precisely this [i.e., the conclusion about the untruth of God] follows from the argument that asserts the eternal existence of the soul with the body."

“Among the souls who are in the body, there are those who, before they were born [in the human body], were taught by the Father and listened to Him; it is they who come to the Savior.”

Moreover, Origen established that souls have freedom of moral behavior, often falling outside of human life, in the angelic world and the world of demons.

“Since we have compared the souls rushing from this world into the underworld with those who, descending from the highest heaven to our abodes, find themselves in a sense dead, we must, through careful research, find out whether the same can be established regarding the birth of individual [souls] In other words: how do the souls that are born on this earth of ours either ascend to higher [places] and accept human flesh, rushing from the underworld to a better place, or from the underworld? best places are they coming down to us? Also, perhaps, those places that are higher in the firmament are owned by other souls who move from our homes to better ones; others [of them], who fell from the heavenly [abodes] to the firmament, did not commit such sins as to be cast out into the lower places inhabited by us."

Souls can “descend” and “ascend”, turn into “spirits” and demons. The hypothesis of "descent and ascension", very similar to the Gnostic wanderings of the eons of the descending creative emanation of the deity, is developed even before its application to Christology. Let's see what counter-argumentation has taken hold in Orthodoxy.

“This opinion... is itself convicted of the fact that it does not contain anything consistent. After all, if the soul from heavenly life is drawn by vice to arboreal life, and from it, through virtue, again ascends to heaven, then this teaching seems doubtful, [since it is unclear] what to prefer - the arboreal life or the heavenly one. is preserved if depravity penetrates into those living there, and the trees of virtue are not deprived, if the soul from there again moves towards good, and there returns to the vicious" (St. Gregory of Nyssa) Lorgus assigns a special place in the criticism of traditionalism to Lactantius. Here are the words of this church historian: “If the soul, due to its simplicity, which excludes divisibility, cannot impart from its being a new beginning of life, then it cannot be assumed that the souls of parents have the ability to simply produce beings similar to themselves.”

Further, Lactantius writes: “I take the liberty to resolve this question by saying that the soul does not come from either one or the other, or from both together, and at the basis of such a decision he puts the concept of simplicity and spirituality of the soul itself, excluding the possibility of any there was division. If the soul is born by parents through the separation of certain parts from the souls belonging to them, as if from some spiritual seed, which is then revealed in the one born, then there is only one conclusion that the soul by nature is a complex and divisible being, and, therefore, destructible. But it is possible to reason in this way only about material and material objects, and not about the spiritual and simple essence, which is the soul. The body can produce another body by imparting to it a part of its essence, but the soul has such a subtle essence that it cannot separate any from itself. parts"

Such a statement, according to priest Sergei Lorgus, seems to reject the creative possibility of creation given to the soul by God. A new man is not only born from his parents, but a parent gives birth to a son. In the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments, we everywhere find “begat” and not “born of them.”

What happens to the soul after death?

Modern psychologist and materialist Igor Gerasimov has his own opinion on this matter. own opinion. He writes: “Since I regard the soul as a material phenomenon consisting of nerve cells, then it dies with the death of the entire organism. And during life, the soul “flies away” into its children (they are the heirs of the mental, physical, social, and material), into its creations and creations, into human affairs, actions, relationships... This is the true continuation of life... human memory that is passed on from father to son, from mother to daughter... And that is why, unconsciously, people strive to continue their family or do something, invent, create, invent... And die once and for all, losing their " trace,” few people want... Realizing this, people are upset when they cannot give birth to children, or when children do not grow up the way they would like, or when life passes in vain, without a trace, without finding its meaning, benefit, joy. So, if at one time Carl Gustav Jung said that “the time for global theories in psychology has not yet come,” then I think that in the 21st century it has already come... - the time has come to “deal” with human psyche in general, and with all its systems, and first of all with what defines the human essence, with the soul."

Of course, psychologist Gerasimov is not making anything up. He talks about what most of us talk about. But there are two glaring contradictions in his statements. First, the soul dies with the death of the body. Only one person will agree with this statement - an atheist. And second; “It is believed that during life, the soul “flies away” into its children.” There is no way a soul can leave its body prematurely. Such a statement is absurd. The soul leaves its “master” only when his poor heart stops beating. And she is incarnated, according to the laws of Karma, into another body prepared for her by the law of Karma and reincarnation.

In the article “Mistaken Opinions Concerning the Doctrines of Theosophists,” Blavatsky tries to prove that the American press, and above all, spiritualist newspapers, constantly criticize and expose the Theosophists to ridicule, not for their cause, but because of a misunderstanding of their teachings. They absolutely do not want to listen to the explanations of the Theosophists. After all, for all theosophists, including New York ones, man is a triad, not a duad. He is even something more. Including the physical body, a person is Tetractys, or quadruple. And, despite the fact that the doctrine of the Theosophists is confirmed by the greatest philosophers of antiquity - Greece and Rome, theosophists did not borrow it from Pythagoras, nor from Plato, nor from the famous theodidacts Alexandrian school.

Blavatsky completely disagrees with the critics that “plastic and unconscious» intermediaries, or ethereal fluids, enveloping the spirit itself. It is also not true that the spirit and soul are identical, and that the spirit can incarnate like the soul. An isolated Soul cannot be a perispirit, as critics believe. How can the “unconscious”, and therefore irresponsible, receive reward or punishment in a future life for actions committed in an unconscious state? How can the spirit - the highest primordial essence, that uncreated and eternal Monad, the spark emanating from the "spiritual sun" of the Kabalists - be only the third element, and be subject to the same errors as the perisprit? Can he, like the vital soul suffering from a chronic illness, become unconscious at least for a while? Can an immortal Spirit degrade to the level of an animal? Of course, this is nonsense, says E.P. Such a critic has not the slightest idea of ​​the doctrines of the Theosophists. He does not understand at all what theosophists mean by the word "spirit." For him, spirit and soul are synonymous; he does not distinguish between them. Theosophists reject such ideas.

Critics' references to Plato contradict the philosopher himself. After all, according to the “divine” philosopher, the soul is a dyad. It consists of two primary components: one is mortal, the other is immortal. The first one is created created gods, creative and intelligent forces of nature. The second is an emanation of the Supreme Spirit. The critic argues that the mortal soul, taking possession of the body, becomes "irrational." But every Theosophist knows that there is a huge difference between irrationality and unconsciousness. Moreover, Plato never confused perispirit with soul or spirit. He, like other philosophers, never called him either nous - soul, nor ψυχη- spirit, but called it ειδωλον, sometimes imago or simulacrum. Blavatsky sees that the author has mixed up the terms, so she floats around in these issues. His question: “Can the separation of the spirit, ψυχη, from the soul, nous, or perispirit, be the cause of complete destruction?..” gives us the key to a misinterpretation. He simply interprets the words "spirit" and "soul" as the same.

Blavatsky is sure that none of the ancient philosophers ever defined them in this way. To support her words, she quotes two respected personalities.

The first she names is Plutarch, a pagan, but a conscientious historian. The second is the Christian authority, Saint James, “brother of the Lord.” Discussing the soul, Plutarch says that while ψυχη is contained in the body, nous, the divine mind, hovers over mortal man, pouring on him a ray of light, the brightness of which depends on the personal merits of the person. And he adds that nous never descends, but remains motionless. Saint James is even more explicit. Speaking about worldly wisdom, he calls it “earthly, sensual, mental" (demonic) and adds that only wisdom coming from above is divine and "reasonable". (noetic- adjective from nous). "Besovsky" element has always been out of favor with holiness, both among the saints of Christianity and among the philosophers of paganism, says Blavatsky. Since St. James regards ψυχη as a demonic element, and Plato considers it something irrational, can he be immortal per se?

Blavatsky wants to bring her thoughts to the end, so she explains to her critic that there is a big difference between the concrete and the abstract, between “trinitarianism” and “ tetractys"Let us, she says, compare this philosophical quaternity, consisting of the physical body, perisprit, soul and spirit, with the ether, which science foresaw, but could never discover, and indicate their relationship. The ether will symbolize the spirit, the vapor formed within it is the soul, water is the perispirit, and ice is the body. Ice melts and forever loses its shape, water evaporates and disperses in space, steam is freed from denser particles and finally reaches a state in which science cannot detect it. Having been cleansed of all impurities, he completely merges with his original cause and, in turn, becomes the cause. With the exception of the immortal nous, the soul, perispirit and physical body, which were all once created and had a beginning, must also have an end.

Does this mean, Blavatsky asks, that individuality is lost in such dissolution? Not at all. But there is a gap between the human ego and the divine Ego, which the critics fill with their confusion. As for the perisprit, it is no more a soul than the thinnest skin of an almond is the grain itself or its husk. Perisprit is the simulacrum of man. Theosophists understand this hypostasis in the same way as the ancient philosophers, but in a completely different way than the spiritualists.

It is not difficult to notice that for Theosophists the spirit is the personal god of every mortal, and he is also his only divine element. The dual soul, on the other hand, is only semi-divine. Since she is a direct emanation of nous, then everything that is in her from the immortal essence, at the end of her earthly cycle, must return to its original source as pure as at the moment of its separation. It was this spiritual essence that the Christian Church recognized in the good daimon and turned him into a guardian angel. At the same time, condemning the "irrational" and sinful soul, the real human ego (from which the word "egoism" comes), she called him an angel of darkness and subsequently made him a personal devil. Her only mistake was that she anthropomorphized him, turning him into a monster, with a tail and horns. And this devil is truly personal, because he is absolutely identical to our ego. It is this elusive and inaccessible personality that ascetics of all countries punish by killing the flesh. (33) (Mistaken opinions concerning the doctrines of the Theosophists).

Immortality of the soul

The human soul has been studied for centuries by ancient thinkers, philosophers, psychologists, church historians, Orthodox thinkers, theologians, and specialists in visible and invisible sciences. And they all came to a common denominator, that the soul is immortal, reasonable, incorruptible and obeys its own laws and the laws of the Heavenly Creator. The soul cannot be seen, touched, hugged or invited to visit. It is not visible, not tangible. Church historians and theologians worked most hard to solve it. We have already talked about Theosophists. Let us give several statements about the soul, said by different Orthodox thinkers, so that it is clear what it is complex problem for all centuries, peoples and countries.

"We say that the soul is simple, reasonable and immortal...". (Theodoret of Cyrrhus); “Christ clearly teaches the immortal state of our soul” (Ibid.); “The soul, being simple and not composed of different parts... is therefore incorruptible and immortal” (Maximus the Confessor); “The spiritual and immortal essence of your soul...” (Gregory of Nyssa); And here are the words of Tatian the Assyrian: “The soul itself is not immortal... it is mortal, but it may not die.”

We see that among some Christian ascetics the topic of “death of the soul” arises. However, their “death” of the soul does not mean its “destructibility”. This, in their opinion, lies the whole meaning of the term “immortality of the soul.” “Just as the separation of the soul from the body is the death of the body, so the separation of God from the soul is the death of the soul. It is the death of the soul that is death in the real sense of the word.” (Gregory Palamas). The immortality of the soul has two meanings. The first is ontological immortality, in the sense of the indestructibility of the soul. On this issue the holy fathers and scientists are unanimous. The second is immortality, as a spiritual state of coexistence with God, in contrast to spiritual death - the separation of the soul from God.

Soul after death

Many legends about this issue walk around the world. But there is only one truth: none of the dead returned to us on earth in their guise. We only have the written testimony of the ancient Fathers of the Church, which, due to necessity, we can trust or not trust. Let's listen to them what they say about the posthumous life of the human soul. We will again go through “Orthodox Anthropology” by Andrei Lorgus.

The fate of the soul after separation from the body is connected with its spiritual and moral state. A sinful, vicious soul does not see God, it is deprived of the communion of the Holy Spirit, and this is called the “death” of the soul: “Just as the separation of the soul from the body is the death of the body, so the separation of God from the soul is the death of the soul. It is the death of the soul that is death in the real sense of this words" (Gregory Palamas).

On the contrary, sanctified, purified souls join in the contemplation of the Divine Glory, approach God, bliss, and lordship; “Every good and God-loving soul, when, having renounced the body associated [with it], leaves here, immediately comes both feeling and contemplation of the good that awaits it” (Gregory the Theologian).

Immediately after bodily death, the soul goes to spiritual world, and not by herself, but by the will of God and with the help of angels. This is what the holy fathers say. The soul comes from the body and approaches the angels. The angels, seeing the immaculate soul leaving, rejoice and, stretching out their clothes, receive her. Then the angels please her, saying: “Blessed are you, O soul, for the will of God has been fulfilled in you” (Abba Zosima); “Then the soul comes out of the body, and the angels greet it...”. If the soul is vicious, demons take possession of it. The Monk Macarius of Egypt says this on this occasion: “Whenever the soul leaves the human body, it takes place there great secret. If she is guilty of sins, hosts of demons come... they accept that soul and hold it in their part... As for the good part, we must understand that this is the case... when [the righteous] come out of the body, their souls are received by hosts of angels ". Whatever we think about it, after the death of the body, the soul comes near it for a short time, it sees the relatives of the deceased, and only after that it moves away from the body from earthly life and flies away to the Higher powers. Here's what Origen says about it:

“[Jesus] knew that He had been heard [by the Father], for in his spirit he felt that the soul of Lazarus had returned to his body, having been released from the land of souls. One should not think that the soul after the exodus was with the body and, as being nearby, soon heard who called Jesus... If anyone admits this regarding the soul of Lazarus and considers the removal of the soul from the body an absurdity, since it is placed near the body, let him say how Jesus was heard by the Father, when both the body of Lazarus still remained dead and the soul, although it was absent... remained, however, near the body. To reconcile this [contradiction] it would be necessary to say that Jesus was not heard [by the Father] when He should have been heard, for the soul was in the body... He is the same. asked for the soul to return and inhabit the body again."

“No one’s soul, freed from the body, wanders here any longer... for [the souls] of the righteous, and children... and sinners immediately go away. And from the parable of Lazarus and the rich man it is clear... that it is impossible for a soul leaving the body wander here... [Otherwise] how can a soul, torn away from the body and gone from all [with it] connection, know without a guide where it should go? And from many other things it should be known that no one’s soul leaves [the body]? ], does not stay here".

Orthodox priests claim that the soul of the deceased is present near the deceased in his house, near the grave. Then she goes where the Lord directs her. Only He, the World Judge, determines the soul’s place of residence before the General Judgment. “Souls are removed to a place assigned to them by God, and are there, awaiting the Resurrection. After that, those who have received the body and are completely, that is, bodily resurrected, will go into the presence of God.” (Irenaeus of Lyons). It follows that after the death of the body the soul loses power over itself, which means the loss of will and its passivity. Although some souls are able to demonstrate their will to act. And let’s say that this is not without the will of God. They are able to serve people, they are the souls of saints. Church history knows many saints who became famous for their great deeds. This is St. Nicholas, Archbishop of Myra of Lycia, St. Barbara, Mary, Mother of God and many others. The Holy Fathers and secular science treat such examples with understanding and respect.

According to the Holy Fathers, the soul, due to freedom and rationality, cannot be subject to evil. However, it is strange that she voluntarily, of her own free will, submits to him. She chooses evil. And our body is subordinate to the soul and is not a source of sin for the soul.

This means that the soul is sinful for our internal reasons, i.e. It is not from the outside that it is burdened with evil. No one and nothing can force a soul to sin. The soul itself is responsible for a person’s actions. Our body is an accomplice in sin, but the source of sin, as strange as it may seem, is not the body, but its soul.

For a person, Freedom is a royal gift from God. And this same gift makes a person responsible for his misdeeds, both on earth and in heaven. “The soul of each person is also the life of his animate body, and, as relating to another, has the ability to animate another, that is, precisely his animate body. But it has life not only as energy, but also as an essence, for it lives in itself. It can be seen that she has an intelligent and spiritual life, clearly different from the life of the body..." (Gregory Palamas).

As we see, the Soul is life and an essence that has existence. It is also the life of the body, or life as such. Soul and life are one, they are in constant struggle and eternal search. In other words, the soul is the harmony of the body and the tuning fork of sounds produced by the body. The actions of the soul are life itself. “The soul,” says Andrei Lorgus, “is an essence for itself and for God as the last one that objectively exists in the Universe, due to the fact that the Creator Himself introduced into the universe a created essence similar to itself, a soul equal to the angels and conquering demons according to His will.” .

"Ego is the breath of life"

Blavatsky went so deep into the topic of the law of reincarnation, immortality, the human ego, soul and spirit that the reader gets the impression that she had before her a textbook on the life of souls in the next world. She analyzes every question and topic about the presence of our soul in the afterlife so easily and professionally that readers all over the world recognize her as a genius.

Francesca. Baby's soul.

The ego, she says, is only the "breath of life" which Jehovah, one of the Elohim, or creative gods, breathed into Adam's nostrils. And as such, unlike the higher mind, it is only an element of individuality that both man and any other living creature possesses. And only by merging with the divine mind can the ego, tainted by earthly imperfections, achieve immortality.

Blavatsky says and modern science admits that even our thought is material. And no matter how fleeting a thought may seem, its origin and subsequent development require some expenditure of energy. Even the slightest movement of thought, reflected in the ether of space, produces a movement that reaches infinity. Therefore, it is a material force, although invisible.

If this is so, then who would dare to assert, she writes, that a person whose individuality consists of thoughts, desires and egoistic passions that are inherent only to him and make him an individual, can live forever with all his distinctive features without changing?

“But if it changes in endless cycles, then what remains of it? What happens to this special individuality that is so highly valued? It is logical to assume that if a person incarnated on earth, forgetting about his precious self, was ready to sacrifice himself for the good of others; if out of love for humanity he tried to bring benefit already in this, real life and become useful for the great and endless work of Creation, Preservation and Revival in the future life; if, finally, striving towards infinity and spiritual perfection, he merges with the essence of his divine mind and is thus drawn into the stream of immortality, it is logical to hope, we say, that he will live in the spirit forever. But that another man, who during his probationary period of exile on earth viewed life as a long series of selfish acts and was as useless to himself as to others, and even harmful, will become as immortal as the previous one is simply impossible introduce!" (Blavatskaya E.P. The Other Side of Life. M. Sfera, 2005).

In nature, everything changes, everything must either move forward or backward - there is no other way. A person must be the master of his own destiny. Every soul wants truth and a meaningful life. A person should not be cruel, he should spend his life in goodness, in the fight against evil. Evil souls, Blavatsky emphasizes. do not go unpunished. Suffering for many centuries is destined for them and such punishment is deserved.

Blavatsky is aware that not everyone will believe the theosophical doctrines and it will not be easy to prove their correctness. But believing in them, Theosophists know what they were taught by the Teachers and the Himalayan Mahatmas. And this teaching is based on the philosophy and system of Indian yogis, on the results of research of many centuries. The teachings of Theosophists are based on the esoteric wisdom of Ancient Egypt, where Moses, like Plato, studied with the Hierophants and Adepts. It was developed using reliable methods and strict analogy, based on the immutability of universal laws and induction.

Elena Petrovna criticizes the Bible, which does not mention a single word about the human soul, and if it does, it compares it to cattle. In Ecclesiastes (III, 19) it is said that man has no advantage over cattle: both die, since the breath that revives them is the same. As for Job, this sufferer only states that a man, having died, “runs away like a shadow, and doesn't stop"(Job, xiv, 2).

Blavatsky turns to the New Testament, maybe she will find the Truth in it? But this book also offers a choice between philharmonic heaven and hell, far from reality. It does not provide any irrefutable evidence, forbids a person to think and insists on blind faith.

You say, she continues, that the doctrine of the Theosophists "was invented for low and vulgar souls." But Theosophists are able to prove, with figures in hand, that these “low and vulgar” souls dominate in civilized and Christian countries, where immortality is promised to all. “We refer you to America, puritanical and pious, which promises every criminal suspended on a rope an eternal paradise if he believes, and immediately, since, according to the Protestant faith, from the scaffold to Eternity there is only one step. Open any New York newspaper and you will find the front page filled with reports of brutal, hitherto unheard of crimes committed by the dozen every day, year after year. Let someone try to find something similar in pagan countries, where people do not bother themselves with concerns about immortality and only strive to merge forever with eternity. Isn’t immortality, then, as a “universal law,” for every “low and vulgar soul” more of an incentive than a measure that deters crime?” (Blavatskaya E.P. The Other Side of Life. M. Sfera, 2005).

Concluding her article, Blavatsky hopes that she has answered all the critic’s accusations.

Note: The article uses religious paintings by Cimabue (1240-1302), a Florentine painter, one of the main representatives of the Italian Renaissance.

Literature

1. V.P. Zinchenko, V.A. The road. Concept of the human soul. Magazine "Knowledge, Understanding, Skill". M. 2005, No. 1.
2. Blavatskaya E.P. Spirit and Soul. //Blavatskaya E.P. In search of the occult. M. Sfera, 2004.
3. Blavatskaya E.P. Spirit and Soul. Right there.
4. Blavatskaya E.P. Spirit and Soul. Right there.
5. Blavatskaya E.P. Isis Unveiled, vol. 1, ch. 11. M. Eksmo, 2011.
6. Blavatskaya E.P. Isis Unveiled, vol.1. Before the Veil. M. Eksmo, 2011.
7. Blavatskaya E.P. Spirit and Soul. Right there.
8. Isis Unveiled. Ch. 9.
9. Isis Unveiled. Ch. 6.
10. Blavatskaya E.P. The Secret Doctrine. T.2 part 2, department 8.
11. The Secret Doctrine. T. 2, art. 4.
12. Blavatskaya E.P. Key to Theosophy. M, Eksmo-Press, 2004.
13. Blavatskaya E.P. In search of the occult. M. Sfera, 1996.
14. Blavatskaya E.P. Parting words to the immortals. M. Sfera, 2004.
15. Blavatskaya E.P. Another side of life. M. Sfera, 2005.
16. Blavatskaya E.P. Another side of life. M. Sfera, 2005.
17. Blavatskaya E.P. Karma of fate. M. MCF, 1995.
18. Priest Andrei Lorgus. Orthodox anthropology. M. 2003.
19. Nemesius of Emesa, bishop. About human nature. pp. 66-67. M. 1996.
20. Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Anthropology of Saint Gregory Palamas. S.100.M.1996.
21. Gregory the Theologian, saint. Creations in 2 volumes. T.2, p. 43.M. 1994.
22. John of Damascus, Rev. Exact statement Orthodox faith. M.-RD, 1992.
23. Popov A. Fundamentals of ancient church anthropology. T.1. P. 31. Madrid, 1965.
24. Gregory Palamas, saint. Conversations (Omilia). M. Pilgrim, 2003.
25. Irenaeus of Lyons. Five books against heretics. M. Pilgrim, 1998.
26. Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov). A word about death. P.74-75.M. 1993.
27. Theophan the Recluse, bishop. Soul and Angel. The path to salvation. P. 99. M, MP, 1999.
28. Origen. About the beginnings. Against Celsus. St. Petersburg, 2008.
29. I. V. Gerasimov. Concept of the human soul. Samizdat. 2010.
30. Isaac the Syrian, Rev. Ascetic words. M. Rule of Faith, 1993.
31. Origen. Against Celsus. M. UIETSP 1996.
32. Maximus the Confessor, Rev. Creations in 2 books. M. Martis, 1993.

E.P. Blavatsky

In one very old letter Teachers, written many years ago and addressed to a member of the Theosophical Society, we find the following instructive lines concerning the mental state of a dying person:

At the last moment, our whole life is reflected in our memory: from all the forgotten corners and crannies, picture after picture emerges, one event after another. The dying brain drives memory out of its lair with a powerful, irresistible impulse, and memory conscientiously reproduces every impression given to it for storage during the active activity of the brain. That impression and thought which turns out to be the strongest naturally becomes the most vivid and outshines, so to speak, all the others, which disappear to reappear only in Devachan. No man dies in a state of insanity or unconsciousness, contrary to the assertions of some physiologists. Even insane or in the throes of a seizure delirium tremens has his own moment of clarity of consciousness at the moment of death, he is simply not able to communicate this to others. Often a person only appears dead. But even between the last pulsation of the blood, the last beat of the heart and that moment when the last spark of animal warmth leaves the body, brain thinks and ego reliving your entire life in these short seconds. Speak in a whisper - you who are present at the deathbed, for you are present at the solemn appearance of death. You should be especially calm immediately after Death grabs the body with its cold hand.

Speak in a whisper, I repeat, so as not to disturb the calm flow of thought and not to interfere with the active work of the Past, projecting its shadow on the screen of the Future...

Materialists have repeatedly come out with active protests against the above opinion. Biology and (scientific) psychology insisted on rejecting this idea; and if the latter (psychology) did not have any proven facts to support its own hypotheses, then the first (biology) simply dismissed it as an empty “superstition.” But progress does not even bypass biology; and this is what her latest discoveries testify to. Not long ago, Dr. Ferre presented to the Biological Society of Paris a most interesting report on the mental state of the dying, brilliantly confirming everything that was said in the above quotation. For Dr. Ferré draws the attention of biologists precisely to the amazing phenomenon of memories of a life lived and the collapse of the blank walls of memory, which for a long time hid the long-forgotten “corners and crannies” that now emerge “picture after picture.”

We need only mention two examples that this scientist gives in his report to prove how sound from the point of view of science are the teachings that we receive from our Eastern Teachers.

The first example involves a man who died of consumption. His illness worsened due to damage to his spine. He had already lost consciousness, but with two successive injections of a gram of ether he was brought back to life. The patient raised his head slightly and quickly spoke in Flemish - a language that neither those present nor the dying man himself understood. And when he was offered a pencil and a piece of cardboard, he scribbled down several words in the same language with amazing speed, and, as it turned out later, without a single mistake. When the inscription was finally translated, it turned out that its meaning was very prosaic. The dying man suddenly remembered that since 1868, that is, for more than twenty years, he had owed a certain man fifteen francs, and asked that they be returned to him.

But why did he write his last will in Flemish? The deceased was a native of Antwerp, but in childhood he changed both city and country, without having time to really learn the local language. He lived his entire future life in Paris and could only speak and write French. It is quite obvious that the memories that returned to him - the last flash of consciousness, which unfolded before him, like a retrospective panorama, his entire life, right up to a trifling episode concerning a few francs borrowed from a friend twenty years ago, came not only from physical brain, but mainly from its spiritual memory - from memory higher ego(Manas, or reincarnating individuality). And the fact that he began to speak and write in Flemish - a language that he could hear in his life only when he himself could hardly speak - serves as additional confirmation of our rightness. In its immortal nature, the Ego knows almost everything. For matter is nothing more than “the last stage and shadow of existence,” as Ravaisson, an employee of the French institute, tells us.

Let's now move on to the second example.

Another patient was dying of pulmonary tuberculosis and was similarly brought to consciousness before death by an injection of ether. He turned his head, looked at his wife and quickly told her: “You won’t find this pin now, since then all the floors have been changed.” The phrase referred to a scarf pin that had been lost eighteen years earlier, an event so insignificant that it could barely be remembered. Even such a trifle did not fail to flash through the last vision of the dying man, who managed to comment on what he saw in words before his breathing stopped. Thus, it can be assumed that all the countless thousands of everyday events and incidents of a long human life flash before the fading consciousness at the very last and decisive moment of disappearance. In just a second, a person relives his entire previous life!

A third example can also be mentioned, convincingly proving the correctness of occultism, which traces all such memories to the mental ability individual, not personal (lower) ego. One young girl, who walked in her sleep until almost twenty-two years of age, could perform a variety of housework while in a state of somnambulistic sleep, which she could not remember anything about after waking up.

Among the mental predispositions that she demonstrated during sleep was a pronounced secrecy, completely unusual for her in the waking state. When she wasn't sleeping, she was quite open and sociable and didn't care much about her property. But in a somnambulistic state, she had the habit of hiding her own things and things that simply came to her hand, and she did this with great ingenuity. Her relatives and friends knew about this habit, as well as two maids specially hired to look after her during her night walks. They did this work for years and knew that the girl never created serious problems: only trivial things disappeared, which were then easy to return to their place. But one hot night the maid dozed off, and the girl got out of bed and went to her father’s office. The latter was a famous notary and had a habit of working late. Just at that moment, he left for a while, and the somnambulist, entering the room, deliberately stole from his desk the will that was lying on it and a rather large sum of money, several thousand, in banknotes and bonds. She hid the stolen goods in the library inside two hollow columns, stylized as solid oak trunks, returned to her room before her father returned and went to bed without disturbing the maid dozing in the chair.

And as a result, the maid stubbornly denied that her young mistress had left her room anywhere at night, and suspicion was removed from the real culprit, and the money was never returned. In addition, the loss of the will, which was supposed to appear in court, practically ruined her father and deprived him of his good name, thereby plunging the entire family into true poverty. About nine years later, the girl, who had by then been free of the habit of sleepwalking for seven years, contracted consumption, from which she eventually died. And so, on her deathbed, when the veil that had previously hidden her somnambulistic experiences from physical memory finally fell, divine intuition awoke, and pictures of the life she had lived flowed in a swift stream before her inner vision, she saw, among others, the scene of her somnambulistic theft. At the same time, she woke up from the oblivion in which she had been for several hours in a row, her face was distorted by a grimace of terrible emotional experience, and she screamed: “What have I done?!” It was I who took the will and the money... Look at the empty columns in the library; it’s me...” She never finished the sentence, because this very violent outburst of emotions ended her life. However, the search was still carried out, and inside the oak columns - where she said - a will and money were found. This case seems even more strange due to the fact that the mentioned columns were so high that even if she stood on a chair and had much more time in reserve than those few seconds that the sleeping kidnapper had, she still would not be able to reach them tops of their heads to lower the stolen goods into their inner emptiness. In this regard, it may be noted that people in a state of ecstasy or frenzy seem to have abnormal abilities (See: Convulsionnaires de St. Medard et de Morzine) - can climb smooth, steep walls and even jump to the tops of trees.

If we accept all these facts as they are stated, do they not convince us that the sleepwalker has a mind and memory of his own, separate from the physical memory of the waking lower Being, and that it is the former that are responsible for the memories in articulo mortis, since the body and physical senses in this case gradually fade away, ceasing to function, the mind steadily moves away along the psychic path, and it is the spiritual consciousness that lasts the longest? Why not? After all, even materialistic science is beginning to recognize many psychological facts that vainly demanded attention some twenty years ago. “True existence,” says Ravaisson, “life, before which all other life seems only a vague outline and a faint reflection, is the life of the Soul.”

What the public usually calls "soul" we call "reborn" ego". “To be means to live, and to live means to think and exercise will,” says this French scientist. But if the physical brain is really only a limited space, a sphere serving to capture the rapid flashes of unlimited and infinite thought, then neither will nor thinking can be said to be incipient inside brain, even from the point of view of materialistic science (remember the unbridgeable gap between matter and mind, the existence of which was recognized by Tyndall and many others). But the thing is that the human brain is simply a channel connecting two levels, psychospiritual and material; and through this channel all abstract and metaphysical ideas seep from the level of Manas into the lower human consciousness. Consequently, no idea of ​​the infinite and absolute enters or can enter into our brain because it exceeds its capabilities. These categories can only be truly reflected by our spiritual consciousness, which then transmits their more or less distorted and dimmed projections onto the tablets of our perceptions of the physical level. Thus, even memories of important events in our lives often fall out of memory, but all of them, including the most insignificant trifles, are preserved in the memory of the “soul”, because for it there is no memory at all, but only an ever-present reality on a level superior to ours. ideas about space and time. “Man is the measure of all things,” said Aristotle; and, of course, he did not mean the external form of a person, molded from flesh, bones and muscles!

Of all the outstanding thinkers, Edgar Quinet - the author of La Creation - expresses this idea most clearly. Speaking about a person filled with feelings and thoughts that he himself is not even aware of or only vaguely perceives as some vague and incomprehensible motivating impulses, Quinet argues that a person is aware of only a very small part of his own moral existence. “Thoughts that come to our minds, but do not receive due recognition and design, being once rejected, find refuge in the very foundations of our being...” And when they are driven away by the persistent efforts of our will, “they retreat even further and even deeper - God knows in what fibers, to reign there and gradually influence us, unconsciously for ourselves...”

Yes, these thoughts become as invisible and inaccessible to us as the vibrations of sound and light when they go beyond the range available to us. Invisible and avoiding our attention, they nevertheless continue to work, laying the foundation for our future thoughts and actions and gradually establishing their control over us, although we ourselves may not think about them at all and may not even be aware of their existence and presence. And it seems that Quinet, that great connoisseur of Nature, was never closer to the truth in his observations than when, speaking of the mysteries that surround us on all sides, he made the following thoughtful conclusion about what is most important for us: “ These are not the secrets of heaven or earth, but those that are hidden in the depths of our soul, in our brain cells, our nerves and fibers. There is no need, he adds, to delve into the star worlds in search of the unknown, while right here - next to us and in us- much remains inaccessible... Just as our world consists mainly of invisible beings who are the true builders of its continents, so is man.”

This is true, as long as a person is a mixture of unconscious and incomprehensible perceptions, vague feelings and emotions that come from nowhere, eternally unreliable memory and knowledge, which on the surface of his level turns into ignorance. But if the memory of a living and healthy person is often not up to par, because one fact in it is layered on top of another, suppressing and repressing the first, then at the moment of the great change that people call death, what we consider “memory” seems to return to us in all its strength and completeness.

And how else can this be explained, if not by simple fact that both of our memories (or rather, two of its states corresponding to the higher and lower states of consciousness) merge together - at least for a few seconds, forming a single whole, and that the dying person passes to a level where there is no past or future , but only one comprehensive present? Memory, as we all know, is strengthened by earlier associations, and therefore becomes stronger with age than, say, in infancy; and it is connected more with the soul than with the body. But if memory is a part of our soul, then, as Thackeray once rightly noted, it must necessarily be eternal. Scientists deny this, but we Theosophists affirm it. They can only give negative arguments to support their theories, but we have in our arsenal countless facts similar to the three that we described above as an example. The chain of cause and effect that determines the action of the mind still remains and will always remain terra incognita for a materialist. For if they are so firmly convinced that, following Pope's expression:

Our thoughts, shut up in the cells of the brain, rest;

But invisible chains always connect them...

- however, to this day they cannot discover these chains, how can they hope to unravel the secrets of the higher, Spiritual Mind!

Footnotes

1. ...In a very old letter from the Master, written many years ago and addressed to a member of the Theosophical Society...– H.P.B. refers to a letter from Master Koot Hoomi received by A. P. Sinnett about October 1882 while he was in Simla, India. This is a very detailed letter containing answers to the questions that Sinnett addressed to Teacher. These questions and the Master's answers are published in Letters from the Mahatmas to A. P. Sinnett. Sinnett asks:

   “16) You say: “Remember that we create ourselves - our Devachan and our Avici, and for the most part - during the last days and even moments of our sensory lives.”

   17) This means that the thoughts that come to a person at the last moment certainly Are they related to the prevailing direction of his life? Otherwise, it will turn out that the character of a personal Devachan or Avici can be determined by the whim of chance, which unfairly brought some extraneous thought as the last one?

   To this the Teacher answers:

   “16) There is a widespread belief among all Hindus that the future state of a person before a new birth and the birth itself are determined by his last desire experienced at the moment of death. But this dying wish, they add, necessarily depends on the images that a person has given to his desires, passions, etc. during his life. past life. For this very reason, namely, that our last desire may not harm our future progress, we must watch our actions and control our passions and desires throughout our earthly life.

   17) Otherwise it’s easy can't be. The experience of dying people - those who drowned or survived some other accident, but were brought back to life - in almost all cases confirms our doctrine. Similar thoughts involuntary, and we have no more power to prevent them than to prevent the retina from perceiving the color that most actively affects it.” (See “Letters from the Mahatmas to Sinnett.” – Samara: Agni, 1998.)

2. 2. ...See: Convulsionnaires de St. Medard et de Morline...– It is quite possible that this French reference points to de Mirville’s writings “Des Esprits, etc.” in that part of it that is dedicated to the possessed; however, this assumption has not yet been confirmed for certain.
3. 3. Rapport sur la Philosophic en France au XlXme Steele.
4. 4. Vol. II, p. 377-78.