Article selections by Prince Chandradat Chudadharn of Siam [Thailand] | Notes by H. P. B.
“A Buddhist Prince’s View of the Universe and the Nature of Man.”1
. . . What the Lord has taught us is, that what will remain permanent and everlasting are Akasa and Nirvana. The former means the Universe, which I understand to comprise all matter, force, and space; and if this idea be correct, of course, all the heavenly bodies are also included in this term. This Akasa (or Universe), although it is self-existing, absolute, infinite, universal, and perfect, without beginning and without end, is yet subject to the immutable law of changes.2
. . . if this solar system of ours, which includes the sun, the moon, and planets, were to be destroyed, or die out by efflux of time, the matter which constitutes their bodies will naturally decay and be turned into elements, while their forces become dormant; just as in the case with ourselves, our bodies when we die will be turned into the elements out of which we are made. When such an event occurs, according to my own conviction, all the other systems of heavenly bodies existing in space, will naturally, by virtue of their affinities to this system, form out of the molecules of matter and dormant forces a new system to supply the vacancy. And this process, of course, is done entirely by mutual attractions or forces.3
Now we come to the vegetable and animal kingdoms, and to these again I suppose that the same law applies—that, by virtue of the living species, new beings are made up by the attractions of their affinities from the remains of those which have died long before.4 . . .
Let me now proceed further to a more complex and critical part of nature than that regarding which we have spoken—that is to say, the soul of man and his succession of rebirths. The soul is conceived by many people as an immortal entity in man, which governs his body in life; but how, at his death, it leaves him, either to be reborn or to live with an imaginary god, is beyond my comprehension. What I call a soul is nothing but the active force or attraction in man which, when he dies, must die with him.5
. . .
. . . As I have already mentioned, our Lord has taught us that the only things that can exist for ever are the Akasa and Nirvana. And this Akasa, according to what I understand, must include all matter, force and space. Now if there exists an objective Nirvana6 it must also be included in the Akasa, because the latter is including even space; and if there is Nirvana just as there is Akasa, the former must naturally be either matter or space, otherwise a moving soul cannot live in it.
. . .
. . . in course of time, a day will come when all the souls which are made out of the substances enumerated will all enter Nirvana, or else ascend to heaven somewhere outside the Universe, and no more beings will exist; nay, even all the heavenly bodies or space itself will exist no more, because then all matter or force, and even space which forms the Universe, are all used up. What will then be the aspect of the empty Universe? This is the reason why I am unable to believe that an immortal soul exists.7
. . .
All I have said will, I hope, be found in harmony with the teachings of our enlightened Lord, as well as with the belief in spiritualism,8 mesmerism, and all other natural powers by which phenomena are produced by man. . . .
Brothers we now plainly see that nothing material or immaterial, either in our bodies or our minds, can be a soul that will survive death; our true souls and selves that will take rebirth are simply the good or bad actions done in life. So then, Brothers, while we are as yet but on the threshold of Nirvana, let us strive to cultivate an universal love, which will undoubtedly tend to good actions, the only tools with which we can paint our perfect likenesses at death.9
. . .
1. This letter was sent by His Royal Highness the Prince of Siam to the Theosophist, where it appears simultaneously with its publication here.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
2. A contradiction. A thing cannot be absolute and still subject to change. What H.R.H. means to say, we suppose, is that space, or the abstract universe (Akasa), is infinite and immutable; but that this universe is subject to changes in its periodical manifestations.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
3. This is certainly not orthodox exoteric Buddhism. But it comes very near to our esoteric philosophy or “Budhism” (Wisdom-religion) taught by our Lord secretly to his elect Arhats.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
4. This is precisely the doctrine taught (see “Secret Doctrine,” Vol. II.) with regard to the animal world, of which all the bodies of mammals have been formed out of the cast-off atoms of various mankinds which preceded ours. Animals were “created” later than Adam and brought to him to be named (vide, Chap. ii., Genesis). In the Puranas, it is the various Rishis who are the reputed parents of divers animals and even of birds and amphibious monsters.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
5. This is too materialistic—we fear. The “Soul” is certainly not immortal, but the eternal karmic ego, that which reincarnates, is. This is esoteric philosophy, of course, not orthodox Buddhism.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
6. No “objective Nirvana” can exist in Nature. Nirvana is a state, not a mode of visible objectiveness, nor a locality. Nirvana, as Nagasena said to the king, is—but does not exist.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
7. His Royal Highness is evidently unacquainted with esoteric philosophy. The latter believes neither in a God who fabricates souls out of nothing, nor that there is such a thing as any place “outside” the Universe, since the Universe is infinite and limitless. But we must also demur to the idea that space can ever be “used up,” whether during Manvantara (or life cycle) or during pralaya, the period of absolute Rest, when space remains the same, i.e., eternal, immutable, as it ever was, and as it will ever be, since abstract space is but another name for the absolute all.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
8. This is to be doubted, as belief in spiritualism presupposes belief in the survival of the soul; and that H.H. denies such a soul in man. Not being sure of what is meant by soul here, however, the Editor leaves this an open question.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
9. Karma, Tanha and Skandhas are the almighty trinity in one, and the cause of our rebirths. The illustration of painting our own present likeness at death, and that likeness becoming the future personality, is very poetical and graphic, but we claim it as an occult teaching. What H.R.H. means to infer, as we understand it, is this: At the solemn moment of death no man can fail to see himself under his true colours, and no self-deception is of any use to him any longer. Thence the following thing happens. As at the instant of drowning man sees marshalled past his mind’s eye the whole of his life, with all its events, effects and causes, to the minutest details, so at the moment of death, he sees himself in all his moral nakedness, unadorned by either human flattery or self-adulation, and, as he is; hence, as he, or rather, as his astral double combined with his Kama principle—shall be. For the vices, defects and especially the passions of the preceding life become, through certain laws of affinity and transference, the germs of the future potentialities in the animal soul (Kama-rupa), hence of its dependent, the astral double (linga-sharira)—at a subsequent birth. It is the personality alone which changes; the real reincarnating principle, the Ego, remains always the same; and it is its KARMA that guides the idiosyncrasies and prominent moral traits of the old “personality” that was (and that the Ego knew not how to control), to re-appear in the new man that will be. These traits and passions pursue and fasten on the yet plastic third and fourth principles of the child, and—unless the Ego struggles and conquers—they will develop with tenfold intensity and lead the adult man to his destruction. For it is they who are the tools and weapons of the Karmic law of Retribution. Thus, the Prince says very truly that our good and bad actions “are the only tools with which we paint our likenesses at death,” for the new man is invariably the son and progeny of the old man that was.—Ed. [H.P.B.]