In a most admirable lecture by Mr. T. Subba Row on the Bhagavad-Gita, published in the February number of the Theosophist, the lecturer deals, incidentally as I believe, with the question of septenary "principles" in the Kosmos and Man. The division is rather criticized, and the grouping hitherto adopted and favoured in theosophical teachings is resolved into one of Four.
This criticism has already given rise to some misunderstanding, and it is argued by some that a slur is thrown on the original teachings. This apparent disagreement with one whose views are rightly held as almost decisive on occult matters in our Society is certainly a dangerous handle to give to opponents who are ever on the alert to detect and blazon forth contradictions and inconsistencies in our philosophy. Hence I feel it my duty to show that there is in reality no inconsistency between Mr. Subba Row's views and our own in the question of the septenary division; and to show (a) that the lecturer was perfectly well acquainted with the septenary division before he joined the Theosophical Society; (b) that he knew it was the teaching of old "Aryan philosophers who have associated seven occult powers with the seven principles" in the Macrocosm and the Microcosm (see the end of this article); and (c) that from the beginning he had objected – not to the classification but to the form in which it was expressed. Therefore, now, when he calls the division "unscientific and misleading," and adds that "this sevenfold classification is almost conspicuous by its absence in many (not all?) of our Hindu books," etc., and that it is better to adopt the time-honoured classification of four principles, Mr. Subba Row must mean only some special orthodox books, as it would be impossible for him to contradict himself in such a conspicuous way.
A few words of explanation, therefore, will not be altogether out of place. For the matter of being "conspicuous by its absence" in Hindu books, the said classification is as conspicuous by its absence in Buddhist books. This, for a reason transparently clear: it was always esoteric; and as such, rather inferred than openly taught. That it is "misleading" is also perfectly true; for the great feature of the day – materialism – has led the minds of our Western theosophists into the prevalent habit of viewing the seven principles as distinct and self-existing entities, instead of what they are – namely, upadhis and correlating states – three upadhis, basic groups, and four principles. As to being "unscientific," the term can be only attributed to a lapsus linguae, and in this relation let me quote what Mr. Subba Row wrote about a year before he joined the Theosophical Society in one of his ablest articles, "Brahmanism on the Sevenfold Principle in Man," the best review that ever appeared of the Fragments of Occult Truth – since embodied in Esoteric Buddhism. Says the author: –
"I have carefully examined it (the teaching) and find that the results arrived at (in the Buddhist doctrine) do not differ much from the conclusions of our Aryan philosophy, though our mode of stating the arguments may differ in form." Having enumerated, after this, the "three primary causes" which bring the human being into existence – i.e., Parabrahmam, Sakti and Prakriti – he explains: "Now, according to the Adepts of ancient Aryavarta, seven principles are evolved out of these three primary entities. Algebra teaches us that the number of combinations of things, taken one at a time, two at a time, three at a time, and so forth = 2n - 1. Applying this formula to the present case, the number of entities evolved from different combinations of these three primary causes amount to 23 - 1 = 8 - 1 = 7. As a general rule, whenever seven entities are mentioned in the ancient occult sciences of India in any connection whatsoever, you must suppose that these seven entities come into existence from the three primary entities; and that these three entities, again, are evolved out of a single entity or MONAD." (See Five Years of Theosophy, p. 160.)
This is quite correct, from the occult standpoint,
and also kabbalistically, when one looks into the question
of the seven and ten Sephiroths, and the
seven and ten Rishis, Manus, etc.
It shows that in sober truth there is not, nor can there
be any fundamental disagreement between esoteric philosophy of
the Trans- and Cis-Himalayan Adepts. The reader
is referred, moreover, to the earlier pages of the
above mentioned article, in which it is stated that "the
knowledge of the occult powers of nature possessed by the inhabitants
of the lost Atlantis was learnt by the ancient Adepts of India,
and was appended by them to the esoteric doctrine taught by the
residents of the sacred island (now the Gobi desert).1
The Tibetan Adepts, however (their precursors of
Central Asia), have not accepted the addition" (pp.
155-156). But this difference between the two doctrines
does not include the septenary division, as it was universal
after it had originated with the Atlanteans, who,
as the Fourth Race, were of course an earlier race than
the Fifth – the Aryan.
Thus, from the purely metaphysical standpoint, the
remarks made on the Septenary Division in the "Bhagavad-Gita"
Lecture hold good today, as they did five or six years
ago in the article, "Brahtnanism on the Sevenfold
Principle in Man," their apparent discrepancy notwithstanding.
For purposes of purely theoretical esotericism, they are
as valid in Buddhist as they are in Brahmanical philosophy.
Therefore, when Mr. Subba Row proposes to hold to
"the time-honoured classification of four principles"
in a lecture on a Vedanta work – the Vedantic classification,
however, dividing man into five "kosas"
(sheaths) and the Atma (the sixth nominally,
of course),2 he simply shows thereby that
he desires to remain strictly within theoretical and metaphysical,
and also orthodox computations of the same. This is how
I understand his words, at any rate. For the Taraka
Raj-Yoga classification is again three upadhis,
the Atma being the fourth principle, and no
upadhi, of course, as it is one with Parabrahm.
This is again shown by himself in a little article called "Septenary
Division in Different Indian Systems."3
Why then should not "Buddhist" Esotericism, so-called,
resort to such a division? It is perhaps "misleading" – that
is admitted; but surely it cannot be called "unscientific."
I will even permit myself to call that adjective a thoughtless
expression, since it has been shown to be on the contrary
very "scientific" by Mr. Subba Row himself;
and quite mathematically so, as the afore-quoted algebraic
demonstration of the same proves it. I say that the division
is due to nature herself pointing out its necessity in kosmos
and man; just because the number seven is "a power,
and a spiritual force" in its combination of three and
four, of the triangle and the quaternary.
It is no doubt far more convenient to adhere to the fourfold classification
in a metaphysical and synthetical sense, just as I have
adhered to the threefold classification – of body, soul
and spirit – in Isis Unveiled, because had I then
adopted the septenary division, as I have been compelled
to do later on for purposes of strict analysis, no one
would have understood it, and the multiplication of principles,
instead of throwing light upon the subject, would have
introduced endless confusion. But now the question has
changed, and the position is different. We have
unfortunately – for it was premature – opened a chink in
the Chinese wall of esotericism, and we cannot now close
it again, even if we would. I for one had to pay
a heavy price for the indiscretion, but I will not shrink
from the results.
I maintain then, that when once we pass from the plane
of pure subjective reasoning on esoteric matters to that of practical
demonstration in Occultism, wherein each principle and
attribute has to be analysed and defined in its application to
the phenomena of daily and especially of post-mortem life,
the sevenfold classification is the right one. For it is
simply a convenient division which prevents in no wise the recognition
of but three groups – which Mr. Subba Row calls "four
principles associated with four upadhis, and which
are associated in their turns with four distinct states of consciousness."4
This is the Bhagavad-Gita classification, it appears;
but not that of the Vedanta, nor – what the Raj-Yogis of
the pre-Aryasanga schools and of the Mahayana
system held to, and still hold beyond the Himalayas,
and their system is almost identical with the Taraka Raj-Yoga, – the
difference between the latter and the Vedanta classification having
been pointed out to us by Mr. Subba Row in his little article
on the "Septenary Division in Different Indian Systems."
The Taraka Raj-Yogis recognize only three upadhis in which
Atma may work, which, in India, if
I mistake not, are the Jagrata, or waking
state of consciousness (corresponding to Sthulopadhi);
the Swapna, or dreaming state (in Sukshmopadhi);
and the Sushupti, or causal state, produced
by, and through Karanopadhi, or what we call
Buddhi. But then, in transcendental states
of Samadhi, the body with its linga sarira,
the vehicle of the life-principle, is entirely
left out of consideration: the three states of consciousness
are made to refer only to the three (with Atma the fourth)
principles which remain after death. And here lies the
real key to the septenary division of man, the three principles
coming in as an addition only during his life.
As in the Macrocosm, so in the Microcosm: analogies
hold good throughout nature. Thus the universe,
our solar system, our earth down to man, are to
be regarded as all equally possessing a septenary constitution – four
super-terrestrial and superhuman, so to say; – three
objective and astral. In dealing with the special case
of man, only, there are two standpoints from which
the question may be considered. Man in incarnation is
certainly made up of seven principles, if we so term
the seven states of his material, astral, and spiritual
framework, which are all on different planes. But
if we classify the principles according to the seat of the four
degrees of consciousness, these upadhis may be reduced
to four groups.5 Thus his consciousness,
never being centered in the second or third principles – both of
which are composed of states of matter (or rather of "substance")
on different planes, each corresponding on one of the planes
and principles in kosmos – is necessary to form links between the
first, fourth and fifth principles, as well as subserving
certain vital and psychic phenomena. These latter may be
conveniently classified with the physical body under one head,
and laid aside during trance (Samadhi), as after
death, thus leaving only the traditional exoteric and
metaphysical four. Any charge of contradictory teaching,
therefore, based on this simple fact, would obviously
be wholly invalid; the classification of principles as
septenary or quaternary depending wholly on the stand-point from
which they are regarded, as said. It is purely a
matter of choice which classification we adopt. Strictly
speaking, however, occult – as also profane – physics
would favour the septenary one for these reasons.6
There are six Forces in nature: this in Buddhism
as in Brahmanism, whether exoteric or esoteric,
and the seventh – the all-Force, or the absolute
Force, which is the synthesis of all. Nature again
in her constructive activity strikes the key-note to this classification
in more than one way. As stated in the third aphorism of
"Sankhya karika" of Prakriti – "the
root and substance of all things," she (Prakriti,
or nature) is no production, but herself a producer
of seven things, "which, produced
by her, become all in their turn producers."
Thus all the liquids in nature begin, when separated from
their parent mass, by becoming a spheroid (a drop);
and when the globule is formed, and it falls, the
impulse given to it transforms it, when it touches ground,
almost invariably into an equilateral triangle (or three),
and then into an hexagon, after which out of the
corners of the latter begin to be formed squares or cubes as plane
figures. Look at the natural work of nature,
so to speak, her artificial, or helped production – the
prying into her occult work-shop by science. Behold the
coloured rings of a soap-bubble, and those produced by
polarized light. The rings obtained, whether in
Newton's soap-bubble, or in the crystal through the polarizer,
will exhibit invariably, six or seven rings – "a black
spot surrounded by six rings, or a circle with a plane
cube inside, circumscribed with six distinct rings,"
the circle itself the seventh. The "Noremberg"
polarizing apparatus throws into objectivity almost all our occult
geometrical symbols, though physicists are none the wiser
for it. (See Newton's and Tyndall's experiments.7)
The number seven is at the very root of occult Cosmogony and Anthropogony.
No symbol to express evolution from its starting to its completion
points would be possible without it. For the circle produces
the point; the point expands into a triangle, returning
after two angles upon itself, and then forms the mystical
Tetraktis – the plane cube; which three when
passing into the manifested world of effects, differentiated
nature, become geometrically and numerically 3 + 4 = 7.
The best kabbalists have been demonstrating this for ages ever
since Pythagoras, and down to the modern mathematicians
and symbologists, one of whom has succeeded in wrenching
forever one of the seven occult keys, and has proven
his victory by a volume of figures. Set any of our theosophists
interested in the question to read the wonderful work called "The
Hebrew Egyptian Mystery, the Source of Measures";
and those of them who are good mathematicians will remain aghast
before the revelations contained in it. For it shows indeed
the occult source of the measure by which were built kosmos and
man, and then by the latter the great Pyramid of Egypt,
as all the towers, mounds, obelisks, cave-temples
of India, and pyramids in Peru and Mexico, and all
the archaic monuments; symbols in stone of Chaldea,
both Americas, and even of the Eastern Islands – the living
and solitary witness of a submerged prehistoric continent in the
midst of the Pacific Ocean. It shows that the same figures
and measures for the same esoteric symbology existed throughout
the world; it shows in the words of the author that the
kabbala is a "whole series of developments based upon the
use of geometrical elements; giving expression in numerical
values, founded on integral values of the circle"
(one of the seven keys hitherto known but to the Initiates),
discovered by Peter Metius in the 16th century, and re-discovered
by the late John A Parker.8 Moreover,
that the system from whence all these developments were derived
"was anciently considered to be one resting in nature
(or God), as the basis or law of the
exertions practically of creative design"; and that
it also underlies the Biblical structures, being found
in the measurements given for Solomon's temple, the ark
of the Covenant, Noah's ark, etc., etc., – in
all the symbolical myths, in short, of the Bible.
And what are the figures, the measure in which the sacred
Cubit is derived from the esoteric Quadrature, which the
Initiates know to have been contained in the Tetraktis of
Pythagoras? Why, it is the universal primordial symbol.
The figures found in the Ansated Cross of Egypt,
as (I maintain) in the Indian Swastika, "the
sacred sign" which embellishes the thousand heads of Sesha,
the Serpent-cycle of eternity, on which rests Vishnu,
the deity in Infinitude; and which also may be pointed
out in the threefold (treta) fire of Pururavas,
the first fire in the present Manvantara, out of
the forty-nine (7 x 7) mystic fires. It may be absent from
many of the Hindu books, but the Vishnu and other Puranas
teem with this symbol and figure under every possible form,
which I mean to prove in "THE SECRET DOCTRINE."
The author of the Source of Measures does not, of
course, himself know as yet, the whole scope of
what he has discovered. He applies his key, so far,
only to the esoteric language and the symbology in the Bible,
and the Books of Moses especially. The great error of the
able author, in my opinion, is, that he applies
the key discovered by him chiefly to post-Atlantean and quasi-historical
phallic elements in the world religions; feeling,
intuitionally, a nobler, a higher, a more
transcendental meaning in all this – only in the Bible, – and
a mere sexual worship in all other religions. This phallic
element, however, in the older pagan worship related,
in truth, to the physiological evolution of the human races,
something that could not be discovered in the Bible, as
it is absent from it (the Pentateuch being the latest of all the
old Scriptures). Nevertheless, what the learned
author has discovered and proved mathematically, is wonderful
enough, and sufficient to make our claim good: namely,
that the figures To whosoever desires to display this process by way of symbol,
says the author speaking of the ansated cross, the
Tau And they are the factor members in the building of the Universe
and MAN. Wittoba – an aspect of Krishna
and Vishnu – is therefore the "man crucified in space,"
or the "cube unfolded," as explained (see Moore's
Pantheon, for Wittoba). It is the oldest
symbol in India, now nearly lost, as the real meaning
of Vishvakarina and Vikkarttana (the "sun shorn
of his beams") is also lost. It is the Egyptian ansated
cross, and vice versa, and the latter – even
the sistrum, with its cross bars – is simply the
symbol of the Deity as man – however phallic it may have become
later, after the submersion of Atlantis. The ansated
cross It means in its synthesis, the seven principles,
the details coming later. Now the ansated cross,
as given above, having been discovered on the backs
of the gigantic statues found on the Easter Isles (mid-Pacific
Ocean) which is a part of the submerged continent; this
remnant being described as "thickly studded with cyclopean
statues, remnants of the civilization of a dense and cultivated
people", – and Mr. Subba Row having told us
what he had found in the old Hindu books, namely,
that the ancient Adepts of India had learned occult powers from
the Atlanteans (vide supra) – the logical inference is that they
had their septenary division from them, just as our Adepts
from the "Sacred Island" had. This ought to settle
the question.
And this Tau cross is ever septenary, under
whatever form – it has many forms, though the main idea
is always one. What are the Egyptian oozas (the
eyes), the amulets called the "mystic eye,"
but symbols of the same? There are the four eyes in the
upper row and the three smaller ones in the lower.
Or again, the ooza with the seven luths hanging
from it, "the combined melody of which creates
one man," say the hieroglyphics. Or again,
the hexagon formed of six triangles, whose apices
converge to a point – thus
It is quite true that the three upadhis of the Taraka
Raj Yoga are, as Mr. Subba Row explains in his
little article, "The Septenary Division in Different
Indian Systems," "the best and the simplest" – but
only in purely contemplative Yoga. And he adds:
"Though there are seven principles in man there are
but three distinct upadhis, in each of which
his Atma may work independently of the rest. These
three upadhis can be separated by the Adept without killing
himself. He cannot separate the seven principles from each
other without destroying his constitution" (Five Years
of Theosophy, p. 185). Most decidedly
he cannot. But this again holds good only with regard to
his lower three principles – the body and its (in life) inseparable
prana and linga sarira. The rest can be separated,
as they constitute no vital, but rather a mental
and spiritual necessity. As to the remark in the same article
objecting to the fourth principle being "included in the
third kosa, as the said principle is but a vehicle
of will-power, which is but an energy of the mind,"
I answer, Just so! But as the higher attributes of the
fifth (Manas), go to make up the original triad,
and it is just the terrestrial energies, feelings
and volitions which remain in the Kama loka, what,
is the vehicle, the astral form, to carry
them about as bhoota until they fade out – which may take
centuries to accomplish? Can the "false" personality,
or the pisacha, whose ego is made up precisely of
all those terrestrial passions and feelings, remain in
Kama loka, and occasionally appear, without
a substantial vehicle, however ethereal? Or are we to give
up the seven principles, and the belief that there is such
a thing as an astral body, and a bhoot,
or spook?
Most decidedly not. For Mr. Subba Row himself once
more explains how, from the Hindu stand-point, the
lower fifth, or Manas can reappear after death,
remarking very justly, that it is absurd to call it a disembodied
spirit. (Five Years of Theosophy, p.
174.) As he says: "It is merely a power,
or force, retaining the impressions of the thoughts or
ideas of the individual into whose composition it originally
entered. It sometimes summons to its aid the Kamarupa
power, and creates for itself some particular,
ethereal form."
Now that which "sometimes summons" Kamarupa,
and the "power" of that name make already two principles,
two "powers" – call them as you will. Then we
have Atma and its vehicle – Buddhi – which make four.
With the three which disappeared on earth this will be equivalent
to seven. How can we, then, speak
of modern Spiritualism, of its materializations and other
phenomena, without resorting to the Septenary?
To quote our friend and much respected brother for the last time,
since he says that "our (Aryan) philosophers have associated
seven occult powers with the seven principles (in
men and in the kosmos), which seven occult powers correspond
in the microcosm with, or are counterparts of, occult
powers in the macrocosm,''11 – quite an esoteric
sentence, – it does seem almost a pity that words pronounced
in an extempore lecture, though such an able one,
should have been published without revision.
2 This is the division given to us by Mr. Subba
Row. See Five Years of Theosophy, p.
136, article signed T.S.
3 Ibid., p. 185.
4 A crowning proof of the fact that the division
is arbitrary and varies with the schools it belongs to,
is in the words published in "Personal and Impersonal God"
by Mr. Subba Row, where he states that "we
have six states of consciousness, either objective
or subjective . . . and a perfect state of
unconsciousness, etc." (See Five Years of
Theosophy pp. 200 and 201.) Of course those
who do not hold to the old school of Aryan and Arhat Adepts are
in no way bound to adopt the septenary classification.
5 Mr. Subba Row's argument that in the matter
of the three divisions of the body "we may make any number
of divisions, and may as well enumerate nerve-force,
blood and bones," is not valid, I think.
Nerve-force – well and good, though it is one with the life-principle
and proceeds from it: as to blood, bones,
etc., these are objective material things, and one
with, and inseparable from the human body; while
ail the other six principles are in their Seventh – the body – purely
subjective principles, and therefore all denied
by material science, which ignores them.
6 In that most admirable article of his – "Personal
and Impersonal God" – one which has attracted much attention
in the Western Theosophical circles, Mr. Subba Row
says. "Just as a human being is composed of seven
principles, differentiated matter in the solar system
exists in seven different conditions. These do not
all come within the range of our present objective consciousness,
but they can be perceived by the spiritual ego in man.
Further, Pragna, or the capacity of perception,
exists in seven different aspects, corresponding
to the seven conditions of matter. Strictly speaking there
are six states of differentiated pragna, the
seventh state being a condition of perfect unconsciousness (or
absolute consciousness). By differentiated pragna I
mean the condition in which pragna is split
up into various states of consciousness. Thus we have six
states of consciousness, etc., etc."
(Five Years of Theosophy, pp. 200 and 201.)
This is precisely our Trans-Himalayan Doctrine.
7 One need only open Webster's Dictionary and examine
the snow flakes and crystals at the word "Snow" to perceive
nature's work. "God geometrizes," says
Plato.
8 Of Newark in his work The Quadrature of the Circle,
his "problem of the three revolving bodies" (N.Y.,
John Wiley and Son).
9 And, by adding to the cross proper
10 Quoted in "Source of Measures."
11 "Brahmanism on the Sevenfold Principle in
Man."
)ÿ
and 3 + 4 = 7, are at the very basis, and are the
soul of cosmogony and the evolution of mankind.
of the Egyptians and the Christian
cross – "it
would be by the figure of the cube unfolded in connection with
the circle whose measure is taken off on to the edges of the cube.
The cube unfolded becomes in superficial display a cross
proper, or of the tau form, and the attachment
of the circle to this last, gives the ansated cross
of the Egyptians with its obvious meaning of the Origin
of Measures.9 Because this kind of
measure was also made to co-ordinate with the idea of the origin
of life, it was made to assume the type of the hermaphrodite,
and in fact it is placed by representation to cover this part
of the human person in the Hindu form. . . ." [It
is "the hermaphrodite Indranse Indra, the nature goddess,
the Issa of the Hebrews, and the Isis of
the Egyptians," as the author calls them in another
place.]". . . It is very observable,
that while there are but six faces to a cube, the representation
of the cross as the cube unfolded as to the cross bars displays
one face of the cube as common to two bars, counted
as belonging to either; then, while the faces originally
represented are but six, the use of the two bars counts
the square as four for the upright and three for the cross bar,
making seven in all. Here we have the famous four,
three and seven again, the four and three on the factor
members of the Parker (quadrature and of the 'three revolving
bodies') problem". . . . (pp. 50 and 51).
is of course, as Professor Seyfforth has shown – again
the six with its head – the seventh. Seyfforth
says "It is the skull with the brains, the seat of
the soul with the nerves extending to the spine, back,
and eyes and ears. For the Tanis stone 
thus translates
it repeatedly by anthropos (man); and we have the
Coptic ank, (vita, life) properly anima,
which corresponds with the Hebrew anosh, properly
meaning anima. The Egyptian anki signifies
"my soul."10
the symbol of the Universal
creation,
which Kenneth Mackenzie tells us "was worn as a ring
by the Sovereign Princes of the Royal Secret" – which they
never knew by the bye. If seven has nought to do
with the mysteries of the universe and men, then indeed
from the Vedas down to the Bible all the archaic Scriptures – the
Puranas, the Avesta and all the fragments that have reached
us – have no esoteric meaning, and must be regarded
as the orientalists regard them – as a farrago of childish tales.
Theosophist, April, 1887
H. P. Blavatsky
l See Isis Unveiled, Vol. 1,
pp. 598-9, and the appendices by the Editor to the
above quoted article in Five Years of Theosophy.
back
to text
back to text
back to text
back to
text
back to text
back to
text
back to text
back to text
the symbol of the four cardinal points and infinity at the same
time, thus, 
, the arms pointing above.
below, and right, and left, making six in
the circle – the Archaic sign of the Yomas – it would make of it
the Swastike, the "sacred sign" used by the order
of "Ishmael masons," which they call the Universal
Hermetic Cross, and do not understand its real wisdom,
nor know its origin.
back to text
back to text
back to text