Theosophical Siftings

Ancient Opinions Upon Psychic Bodies

Vol 1, No 2

Ancient Opinions Upon Psychic Bodies

by H.P. Blavatsky
originally published in The Theosophist, Vol 1 by The Theosophical Society, Adyar, hennai !"adras#$ %ndia &'' '2' and reprinted fro( )Theosophical Siftings* Volu(e 1 Published in 1+,The Theosophical Publishing Society, .ngland
[Page 15] %t

(ust be confessed that (odern Spiritualis( falls /ery short of the ideas for(erly suggested by the subli(e designation 0hich it has assu(ed$ hiefly intent upon recognising and putting for0ard the pheno(enal proofs of a future e1istence, it concerns itself little 0ith speculations on the distinction bet0een (atter and spirit, and rather prides itself on ha/ing de(olished "aterialis( 0ithout the aid of (etaphysics$ Perhaps a Platonist (ight say that the recognition of a future e1istence is consistent 0ith a /ery practical and e/en dog(atic (aterialis(, but it is rather to be feared that such a (aterialis( as this 0ould not greatly disturb the spiritual or intellectual repose of our (odern pheno(enalists$ [ 2% a( afraid*, says Tho(as Taylor, in his %ntroduction to the Phaedo, )there are scarcely any at the present day 0ho 3no0 that it is one thing for the soul to be separated fro( the body, and another for the body to be separated fro( the soul, and that the for(er is by no (eans a necessary conse4uence of the latter*] 5i/en the consciousness, 0ith its sensibilities safely housed in the psychic body, 0hich de(onstrably sur/i/es the physical carcass, and 0e are li3e (en sa/ed fro( ship0rec3, 0ho are for the (o(ent than3ful and content, not gi/ing thought 0hether they are landed on a hospitable shore, or a barren roc3, or on an island of cannibals$ %t is not, of course, intended that this 2hand to (outh2 i((ortality is sufficient for the (any thoughtful (inds 0hose acti/ity gi/es life and progress to the (o/e(ent, but that it affords a relief 0hich (ost people feel 0hen in an age of doubt they (a3e the disco/ery that they are undoubtedly to li/e again$ To the 4uestion, 26o0 are the dead raised up, and 0ith 0hat body do they co(e72 (odern Spiritualis(, 0ith its e(pirical (ethods, is not ade4uate to reply$ 8et, long before Paul suggested it, it had the attention of the (ost celebrated schools of philosophy, 0hose speculations on the sub9ect, ho0e/er little they (ay see( to be /erified, ought not to be 0ithout interest to us, 0ho, after all, are still in the infancy of a Spiritualist re/i/al$ %t 0ould not be necessary to pre(ise, but for the fre4uency 0ith 0hich the phrase occurs, that the )spiritual body* is a contradiction in ter(s$ The office of body is to relate spirit to an ob9ecti/e 0orld$ By platonic 0riters it is usually ter(ed o3he(a : 2/ehicle2$ %t is the (ediu( of [Page 16] action and also of sensibility$ %n this philosophy the conception of soul 0as not si(ply, as 0ith us, the i((aterial sub9ect of consciousness$ 6o0 0arily the interpreter has to tread here, e/ery one 3no0s 0ho has dipped e/en superficially into the contro/ersies a(ong the Platonists the(sel/es$ All ad(it the distinction bet0een the rational and the irrational part or principle, the latter including, first, the sensibility, and, secondly, the plastic, or that po0er 0hich in obedience to its sy(pathies enables the soul to attach itself to, and to organi;e into a suitable body, those substances of the uni/erse to 0hich it is (ost congruous$ %t is (ore difficult to deter(ine 0hether Plato or his principal follo0ers recogni;ed in the rational soul or nous a distinct and separable entity : that 0hich is so(eti(es discri(inated as )the Spirit*$ <r$ 6enry "ore, no (ean authority, repudiates this interpretation$ 2There can be nothing (ore (onstrous2, he says, 2than to Page 1

Theosophical Siftings

Ancient Opinions Upon Psychic Bodies

Vol 1, No 2

(a3e t0o souls in (an, the one sensiti/e, the other rational, really distinct fro( one another, and to gi/e the na(e of Astral Spirit to the for(er= 0hen there is in (an no astral spirit sa/e the plastic of the soul itself, 0hich is al0ays inseparable fro( the rational$ Nor upon any other account can it be called astral, but as it is liable to that corporeal te(pera(ent 0hich proceeds fro( the stars, or rather fro( any (aterial causes in general, as not being yet sufficiently united 0ith the di/ine body : that /ehicle of di/ine /irtue or po0er2$ So he (aintains that the >abalistic three souls : Nephesh, Ruach, Neshama : originate in a (isunderstanding of the true Platonic doctrine, 0hich is that of a threefold )/ital congruity*$ These correspond to the three degrees of bodily e1istence, or to the three vehicles, the terrestrial, the aerial, and the ethereal$ The latter is the augoeides : the lucifor( /ehicle of the purified soul 0hose irrational part has been brought under co(plete sub9ection to the rational$ The aerial is that in 0hich the great (a9ority of (an3ind find the(sel/es at the dissolution of the terrestrial body, and in 0hich the inco(plete process of purification has to be undergone during long ages of preparation for the soul?s return to its pri(iti/e etherial state$ @or it (ust be re(e(bered that the preAe1istence of souls is a distinguishing tenet of this philosophy, as of the >abala$ The soul has 2sun3 into (atter2$ @ro( its highest original state the re/olt of its irrational nature has a0a3ened and de/eloped successi/ely its vital congruities 0ith the regions belo0 passing, by (eans of its Plastic, first into the aerial and after0ards into the terrestrial condition$ .ach of these regions tee(s also 0ith an appropriate population 0hich ne/er passes, li3e the hu(an soul, fro( one to the other : 2gods*, )de(ons*, and, 2ani(als*$ [The allusion here is to those beings of the se/eral 3ingdo(s of the ele(ents 0hich 0e Theosophists, follo0ing after the >abalists, ha/e called the ).le(entals* ] As to the duration, 2the shortest of all is that of the terrestrial /ehicle$ %n the aerial, the soul (ay inhabit, as they define, (any ages, and in the ethereal fore/er2$ Spea3ing [Page 17] of the second body, 6enry "ore saysB 2The soul?s astral /ehicle is of that tenuity that itself can as easily pass the s(allest pores of the body as the light does glass, or the lightning the scabbard of a s0ord 0ithout tearing or scorching of it2$ And againB 2% shall (a3e bold to assert that the soul (ay li/e in an aerial /ehicle as 0ell as in the ethereal, and that there are /ery fe0 that arri/e to that high happiness as to ac4uire a celestial /ehicle i((ediately upon their 4uitting the terrestrial one, that hea/enly chariot necessarily carrying us in triu(ph to the greatest happiness the soul of (an is capable of, 0hich 0ould arri/e to all (en indifferently, good or bad, if the parting 0ith this earthly body 0ould suddenly (ount us into the hea/enly, 0hen by a 9ust Ne(esis the souls of (en that are not heroically /irtuous 0ill find the(sel/es restrained 0ithin the co(pass of this caliginous air, as both reason itself suggests, and the Platonists ha/e unani(ously deter(ined2$ Thus, also, the (ost thoroughAgoing and probably the (ost deeply /ersed in the doctrines of the (aster a(ong (odern Platonists, Tho(as Taylor C%ntroduction, PhaedoD$ 2After this our di/ine philosopher infor(s that the pure soul 0ill after death return to pure and eternal natures= but that the i(pure soul, in conse4uence of being i(bued 0ith terrene affections, 0ill be dra0n do0n to a 3indred nature, and be in/ested 0ith a gross /ehicle capable of being seen by the corporeal eye$ [This is the 6indu theory of nearly e/ery one of the Aryan philosophies] @or 0hile a propensity to body re(ains in the soul, it causes her to attract a certain /ehicle to herself, either of an aerial nature or co(posed fro( the /apours and spirit of her terrestrial body, or 0hich is recently collected fro( the surrounding air= for, according to the arcana of the Platonic philosophy, bet0een an etherial body 0hich is si(ple and i((aterial, and is the eternal connate /ehicle of the soul, and a terrene body 0hich is (aterial and co(posite, and of short duration, there is an aerial body 0hich is (aterial indeed, but si(ple and of a (ore e1tended duration= and in this body the unpurified soul d0ells for a long 0hile after its e1it fro( hence, till this pneu(atic /ehicle being dissol/ed, it is again in/ested 0ith a co(posite body= 0hile, on the contrary, the purified soul i((ediately ascends to the celestial regions 0ith its ethereal /ehicle alone$2Al0ays it is the disposition of the soul that deter(ines the 4uality of its body$ 26o0e/er the soul be affected2, says Porphyry Ctranslated by ud0orthD, 2so does it al0ays find a body suitable and agreeable to its present disposition, and therefore to the purged soul does naturally accrue a body that co(es ne1t to i((ateriality, that is, an ethereal one2$ And the sa(e authorB 2The soul is ne/er 4uite na3ed of all body, but has al0ays so(e body or other 9oined 0ith it, suitable and agreeable to its Page 2

Theosophical Siftings

Ancient Opinions Upon Psychic Bodies

Vol 1, No 2

present disposition Ceither a purer or i(purer oneD$ But that at its first 4uitting this gross earthly body, the spirituous body 0hich acco(panieth it Cas its /ehicleD (ust needs go a0ay fouled and incrassated 0ith the /apours and stea(s thereof, till the soul after0ards by degrees purifying itself, this beco(eth at length a dry [Page 1 ] splendour, 0hich hath no (isty obscurity nor casteth any shado02$ 6ere, it 0ill be seen, 0e lose sight of the specific difference of the t0o future /ehiclesB the ethereal is regarded as a subli(ation of the aerial This, ho0e/er, is opposed to the general consensus of Plato?s co((entators$ So(eti(es the ethereal body, or augoeides, is appropriated to the rational soul, or spirit, 0hich (ust then be considered as a distinct entity, separable fro( the lo0er soul$ Philoponus, a hristian 0riter, says 2that the rational soul, as to its energy, is separable fro( all body= but the irrational part, or life thereof, is separable only fro( this gross body, and not fro( all body 0hatsoe/er, but hath, after death, a spirituous or airy body, in 0hich it acteth : this % say, is a true opinion 0hich shall after0ards be pro/ed by us $ $ $ $ The irrational life of the soul hath not all its being in this gross earthly body, but re(aineth after the soul?s departure out of it, ha/ing for its /ehicle and sub9ect the spirituous body, 0hich itself is also co(pounded out of the four ele(ents, but recei/eth its deno(ination fro( the predo(inant part, to 0it, air, as this gross body of ours is called earthy fro( 0hat is (ost predo(inant therein2 C ud0orth, %ntell$ Syst$D$ @ro( the sa(e source 0e e1tract the follo0ingB 2Eherefore these ancients say that i(pure souls, after their departure out of this body, 0ander here up and do0n for a certain space in their spirituous, /aporous and airy body, appearing about sepulchers and haunting their for(er habitation$ @or 0hich cause there is great reason that 0e should ta3e care of li/ing 0ell, as also of abstaining fro( a fouler and grosser diet= these ancients telling us li3e0ise that this spirituous body of ours, being fouled and incrassated by e/il diet, is apt to render the soul in this life also (ore obno1ious to the disturbances of passion$ They further add that there is so(ething of the plantal or plastic life, also e1ercised by the soul, in those spirituous or airy bodies after death= they being nourished, too, though not after the sa(e (anner as those gross earthy bodies of ours are here, but by /apours, and that not by parts or organs, but throughout the 0hole of the( Cas spongesD, they i(bibing e/ery0here those /apours$ @or 0hich cause those 0ho are 0ise 0ill in this life also ta3e care of using a thinner and dryer diet, that so that spirituous body C0hich 0e ha/e also at this present ti(e 0ithin our proper bodyD (ay not be clogged and incrassed, but attenuated$ O/er and abo/e 0hich, those ancients (ade use of cathar(s, or purgations, to the sa(e end and purpose also$ @or as this earthy body is 0ashed by 0ater, so is that spirituous body cleansed by cathartic /apours : so(e of these /apours being nutriti/e, others purgati/e$ "oreo/er, these ancients further declared concerning this spirituous body that it 0as not organi;ed, but did the 0hole of it in e/ery part e1ercise all the functions of sense, the soul hearing, seeing, and percei/ing all sensibles by it e/ery0here$ @or 0hich cause Aristotle hi(self affir(eth in his "etaphysics that there is properly but one sense and one sensory$ 6e by this one sensory (eaneth the spirit, in subtle airy body, in 0hich the sensiti/e po0er doth all of it, through the [Page 1!] 0hole, i((ediately apprehend all /ariety of sensibles$ And if it be de(anded to ho0 it co(es to pass that this spirit beco(es organi;ed in sepulchers, and (ost co((only of hu(an for(, but so(eti(es in the for(s of other ani(als, to this these ancients replied that their appearing so fre4uently in hu(an for( proceeded fro( their being incrassated 0ith e/il diet, and then, as it 0ere, sta(ped upon 0ith the for( of this e1terior a(bient body in 0hich they are, as crystal is for(ed and coloured li3e to those things 0hich it is fastened in, or reflects the i(age of the($ And their ha/ing so(eti(es other different for(s proceedeth fro( the phantastic po0er of the soul itself, 0hich can at pleasure transfor( the spirituous body into any shape$ @or being airy, 0hen it is condensed and fi1ed, it beco(eth /isible, and again in/isible and /anishing out of sight 0hen it is e1panded and rarified2$ CProe( in Aristotle, )<e Ani(a*$D And ud0orth says, 2Though those spirits or ghosts had certain supple bodies 0hich they could so far condense as to (a3e the( so(eti(es /isible to (en, yet is it reasonable enough to thin3 that they could not constipate or fi1 the( into such a fir(ness, grossness, and solidity as that of flesh and bone as to Page F

Theosophical Siftings

Ancient Opinions Upon Psychic Bodies

Vol 1, No 2

continue therein, or at least not 0ithout such difficulty and pain as 0ould hinder the( fro( atte(pting the sa(e$ Not0ithstanding 0hich it is not denied that they (ay possibly so(eti(es (a3e use of other solid bodies, (o/ing and acting the(, as in that fa(ous story of Phlegon?s, 0hen the body /anished not as other ghosts used to do, but 0as left a dead carcase behind2$ %n all these speculations the Anima Mundi plays a conspicuous part$ %t is the source and principle of all ani(al souls, including the irrational soul of (an$ But in (an, 0ho 0ould other0ise be (erely analogous to other terrestrial ani(als, this soul participates in a higher principle, 0hich tends to raise and con/ert it to itself$ To co(prehend the nature of this union, or hypostasis, it 0ould be necessary to ha/e (astered the 0hole of Plato?s philosophy as co(prised in the )Par(enides* and the )Ti(aeus* = and he 0ould dog(ati;e rashly 0ho 0ithout this arduous preparation should clai( Plato as the cha(pion of an unconditional i((ortality$ ertainly in the 2Phaedo2, the dialogue popularly supposed to contain all Plato?s teaching on the sub9ect, the i((ortality allotted to the i(pure soul is of a /ery 4uestionable character, and 0e should rather infer fro( the account there gi/en that the hu(an personality, at all e/ents, is lost by successi/e i((ersions )into (atter*$ The follo0ing passage fro( Plutarch 0ill at least de(onstrate the anti4uity of notions 0hich ha/e recently been (ista3en for fanciful no/eltiesB 2 ./ery soul hath so(e portion of nous : reason, : a (an cannot be a (an 0ithout it= but as (uch of each soul as is (i1ed 0ith flesh and appetite is changed, and through pain and pleasure beco(es irrational$ ./ery soul does not (i1 herself after one sortB so(e plunge the(sel/es into the body, and so in this life their 0hole fra(e is corrupted by appetite and passion= others are (i1ed as to so(e part, but the purer part still re(ains 0ithout the body$ %t is not dra0n do0n into the body [Page "#] but it s0i(s abo/e, and touches the e1tre(est part of the (an?s head= it is li3e a cord to hold up and direct the subsiding part of the soul, as long as it pro/es obedient and is not o/erco(e by the appetites or the flesh$ The part that is plunged into the body is called the soul= but the incorruptible part is called the nous, and the /ulgar thin3 it is 0ithin the(, as they li3e0ise i(agine the i(age reflected fro( a glass to be in that glass$ But the (ore intelligent, 0ho 3no0 it to be 0ithout, call it a <ae(on2$ And in that learned 0or3, )%sis Un/eiled*, 0e ha/e t0o hristian authorities, %renaeus and Origen, cited for a li3e distinction bet0een spirit and soul in such a (anner as to sho0 that the for(er (ust necessarily be regarded as separable fro( the latter$ %n the distinction itself there is of course no no/elty for the (ost (oderately 0ellAinfor(ed$ %t is insisted upon in (any (odern 0or3s, a(ong 0hich (aybe (entioned 6eard?s )Tricoto(y of "an* and 5reen?s )Spiritual Philosophy* = the latter being an e1position of oleridge?s opinion on this and cognate sub9ects$ But the difficulty of regarding the t0o principles as separable in fact as 0ell as in logic arises fro( the sense, if it is not the illusion, of personal identity$ That 0e are partible, and that one part only is i((ortal, the nonA (etaphysical (ind re9ects 0ith the indignation 0hich is al0ays encountered by a proposition 0hich is at once distasteful and unintelligible$ 8et, perhaps, it is not a greater difficulty Cif, indeed, it is not the /ery sa(eD than that hard saying 0hich troubled Nicode(us and 0hich yet has been the 3eyAnote of the (ystical religious consciousness e/er since$ This, ho0e/er, is too e1tensi/e and deep a 4uestion to be treated in this article, 0hich has for its ob9ect chiefly to call attention to the distinctions introduced by ancient thought into the conceptions of body as the instru(ent or 2/ehicle2 of soul$ That there is a correspondence bet0een the spiritual condition of (an and the (ediu( of his ob9ecti/e acti/ity e/ery spiritualist 0ill ad(it to be probable, and it (ay 0ell be that so(e light is thro0n on future states by the possibility or the (anner of spiritAco((unication 0ith this one$

Page G