Mahatma Letter No. 72 - Revision history

Alejandro Daniele at 17:55, 10 June 2024

2024-06-10T17:55:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:55, 10 June 2024
Line 88:		Line 88:
	[[Category:ML with images]]		[[Category:ML with images]]
	[[Category:ML needs commentary]]		[[Category:ML needs commentary]]
			[[es: CM72]]

Pablo Sender at 17:33, 10 May 2024

2024-05-10T17:33:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 10 May 2024
Line 40:		Line 40:
	* '''Plutarch''' was a Roman historian and biographer who was in accord with [[Plato\|Plato's]] philosophy.		* '''Plutarch''' was a Roman historian and biographer who was in accord with [[Plato\|Plato's]] philosophy.
	* '''Anaxagoras''' was a Greek philosopher and scientist who introduced the concept of [[Nous]] (mind).		* '''Anaxagoras''' was a Greek philosopher and scientist who introduced the concept of [[Nous]] (mind).
	* '''~~Demonium~~''' ~~refers to~~ the Greek term ~~δαίμων (~~''daemon'', ~~Latin ''daemonium'')~~ which was often used by Platonists to refer to people's souls.		* '''Daemonium''' is the Latin form of the Greek term ''daemon'' (δαίμων), which was often used by Platonists to refer to people's souls.
	{{Col-end}}		{{Col-end}}

Pablo Sender: /* Page 1 transcription, image, and notes */

2024-05-10T16:52:32Z

Page 1 transcription, image, and notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 10 May 2024
Line 40:		Line 40:
	* '''Plutarch''' was a Roman historian and biographer who was in accord with [[Plato\|Plato's]] philosophy.		* '''Plutarch''' was a Roman historian and biographer who was in accord with [[Plato\|Plato's]] philosophy.
	* '''Anaxagoras''' was a Greek philosopher and scientist who introduced the concept of [[Nous]] (mind).		* '''Anaxagoras''' was a Greek philosopher and scientist who introduced the concept of [[Nous]] (mind).
	* '''Demonium''' refers to the Greek term δαίμων (''daemon'', Latin ''daemonium'') which was often used to refer to people's souls ~~by the Platonists~~.		* '''Demonium''' refers to the Greek term δαίμων (''daemon'', Latin ''daemonium'') which was often used by Platonists to refer to people's souls.
	{{Col-end}}		{{Col-end}}

Pablo Sender: /* Page 1 transcription, image, and notes */

2024-05-10T16:50:03Z

Page 1 transcription, image, and notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:50, 10 May 2024
Line 29:		Line 29:
	Extracts from Letters of [[Koot Hoomi\|K.H.]] to [[Allan Octavian Hume\|A.O.H.]] and [[Alfred Percy Sinnett\|A.P.S.]] Received by A.P.S. August 13th, 1882.		Extracts from Letters of [[Koot Hoomi\|K.H.]] to [[Allan Octavian Hume\|A.O.H.]] and [[Alfred Percy Sinnett\|A.P.S.]] Received by A.P.S. August 13th, 1882.

	One of your letters begins with a quotation from one of my own . . . "Remember that there is within man no abiding [[principle]]" — which sentence I find followed by a remark of yours "How about the [[Buddhi\|sixth]] and [[Ātman\|seventh]] principles?" To this I answer, neither Atma nor Buddhi ever were within man, — a little metaphysical axiom that you can study with advantage in Plutarch and Anaxagoras. The latter made his — nous autochrates — the spirit self-potent, the [[Nous\|nous]] that alone recognised [[Noumenon\|noumena]] while the former taught on the authority of [[Plato]] and [[Pythagoras]] that the ~~denominer~~ or this nous always remained without the body; that it floated and overshadowed so to say the extreme part of the man's head, it is only the vulgar who think it is within them . . . Says [[Gautama Buddha\|Buddha]] "you have to get rid entirely of all the subjects of impermanence composing the body that your body should become permanent. The permanent never merges with the impermanent although the two are one. But it is only when all outward appearances are gone that there is left that one principle of life which exists independently of all external phenomena. It is the fire that burns in the eternal light, when the fuel is expended and the flame is extinguished; for that fire is neither in the flame nor in the fuel, nor yet inside either of the two but above beneath and everywhere — (Parinirvana Sutra Kiouen XXXIX).		One of your letters begins with a quotation from one of my own . . . "Remember that there is within man no abiding [[principle]]" — which sentence I find followed by a remark of yours "How about the [[Buddhi\|sixth]] and [[Ātman\|seventh]] principles?" To this I answer, neither Atma nor Buddhi ever were within man, — a little metaphysical axiom that you can study with advantage in Plutarch and Anaxagoras. The latter made his — nous autochrates — the spirit self-potent, the [[Nous\|nous]] that alone recognised [[Noumenon\|noumena]] while the former taught on the authority of [[Plato]] and [[Pythagoras]] that the ''demonium'' or this nous always remained without the body; that it floated and overshadowed so to say the extreme part of the man's head, it is only the vulgar who think it is within them . . . Says [[Gautama Buddha\|Buddha]] "you have to get rid entirely of all the subjects of impermanence composing the body that your body should become permanent. The permanent never merges with the impermanent although the two are one. But it is only when all outward appearances are gone that there is left that one principle of life which exists independently of all external phenomena. It is the fire that burns in the eternal light, when the fuel is expended and the flame is extinguished; for that fire is neither in the flame nor in the fuel, nor yet inside either of the two but above beneath and everywhere — (Parinirvana Sutra Kiouen XXXIX).

	{{Col-break\|width=3%}}		{{Col-break\|width=3%}}
Line 40:		Line 40:
	* '''Plutarch''' was a Roman historian and biographer who was in accord with [[Plato\|Plato's]] philosophy.		* '''Plutarch''' was a Roman historian and biographer who was in accord with [[Plato\|Plato's]] philosophy.
	* '''Anaxagoras''' was a Greek philosopher and scientist who introduced the concept of [[Nous]] (mind).		* '''Anaxagoras''' was a Greek philosopher and scientist who introduced the concept of [[Nous]] (mind).
			* '''Demonium''' refers to the Greek term δαίμων (''daemon'', Latin ''daemonium'') which was often used to refer to people's souls by the Platonists.
	{{Col-end}}		{{Col-end}}

SysopJ at 02:44, 1 March 2020

2020-03-01T02:44:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:44, 1 March 2020
Line 85:		Line 85:
	[[Category:ML from Koot Hoomi]]		[[Category:ML from Koot Hoomi]]
	[[Category:ML needs background]]		[[Category:ML needs background]]
	[[Category:ML ~~needs publication history~~]]		[[Category:ML to A. P. Sinnett]]
			[[Category:ML with images]]
	[[Category:ML needs commentary]]		[[Category:ML needs commentary]]

SysopJ at 15:16, 17 December 2019

2019-12-17T15:16:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:16, 17 December 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~[[Category:ML from Koot Hoomi]]~~
	~~[[Category:ML needs background]]~~
	~~[[Category:ML needs publication history]]~~
	~~[[Category:ML needs commentary]]~~
	{{Infobox MLbox		{{Infobox MLbox
	\| header1 = People involved \|		\| header1 = People involved \|
Line 17:		Line 13:
	\| vialocation = unknown{{pad\|9em}}		\| vialocation = unknown{{pad\|9em}}
	}}		}}
	'''~~This is~~ Letter No. 127 in Barker numbering.''' See below for [[Mahatma Letter No. 72#Context and background\|Context and background]].		This is '''Letter No. 72''' in''' [[The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett (book)\|''The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett'']], 4th chronological edition'''. It corresponds to '''Letter No. 127''' in '''Barker numbering.''' See below for [[Mahatma Letter No. 72#Context and background\|Context and background]].
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>
Line 86:		Line 82:
	== Notes ==		== Notes ==
	<references/>		<references/>
	~~<br>~~

	~~== Additional resources ==~~		[[Category:ML from Koot Hoomi]]
			[[Category:ML needs background]]
			[[Category:ML needs publication history]]
			[[Category:ML needs commentary]]

SysopJ at 15:04, 4 December 2019

2019-12-04T15:04:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:04, 4 December 2019
Line 11:		Line 11:
	\| writtendate = unknown		\| writtendate = unknown
	\| receiveddate = August 13, 1882		\| receiveddate = August 13, 1882
	\| otherdate = ~~none~~		\| otherdate = unknown
	\| header3 = Places		\| header3 = Places
	\| sentfrom = unknown		\| sentfrom = unknown
	\| receivedat = [[Simla, India]]		\| receivedat = [[Simla, India]]
	\| vialocation = ~~none~~		\| vialocation = unknown{{pad\|9em}}
	}}		}}
	'''This is Letter No. 127 in Barker numbering.''' See below for [[Mahatma Letter No. 72#Context and background\|Context and background]].		'''This is Letter No. 127 in Barker numbering.''' See below for [[Mahatma Letter No. 72#Context and background\|Context and background]].

Pablo Sender: /* Context and background */

2019-10-14T15:29:30Z

Context and background

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:29, 14 October 2019
Line 69:		Line 69:
	== Context and background ==		== Context and background ==

			This letter is a copy in [[A. P. Sinnett]]’s handwriting of extracts from a letter to him and [[A. O. Hume]]. It may be assumed that Sinnett passed the original letter on to Hume.

	== Physical description of letter ==		== Physical description of letter ==

Anton Diachenko at 15:36, 30 January 2015

2015-01-30T15:36:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:36, 30 January 2015
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Extracts from Letters of [[Koot Hoomi\|K.H.]] to [[Allan Octavian Hume\|A.O.H.]] and [[Alfred Percy Sinnett\|A.P.S.]] Received by A.P.S. August 13th, 1882.		Extracts from Letters of [[Koot Hoomi\|K.H.]] to [[Allan Octavian Hume\|A.O.H.]] and [[Alfred Percy Sinnett\|A.P.S.]] Received by A.P.S. August 13th, 1882.

	One of your letters begins with a quotation from one of my own . . . "Remember that there is within man no abiding [[principle]]" — which sentence I find followed by a remark of yours "How about the [[Buddhi\|sixth]] and [[Ātman\|seventh]] principles?" To this I answer, neither Atma nor Buddhi ever were within man, — a little metaphysical axiom that you can study with advantage in Plutarch and Anaxagoras. The latter made his — nous autochrates — the spirit self-potent, the [[Nous\|nous]] that alone recognised [[Noumenon\|noumena]] while the former taught on the authority of [[Plato]] and [[Pythagoras]] that the denominer or this nous always remained without the body; that it floated and overshadowed so to say the extreme part of the man's head, it is only the vulgar who think it is within them . . . Says [[Gautama Buddha\|Buddha]] "you have to get rid entirely of all the subjects of impermanence composing the body that your body should become permanent. The permanent never merges with the impermanent although the two are one. But it is only when all outward appearances are gone that there is left that one principle of life which exists independently of all external phenomena. It is the fire that burns in the eternal light, when the fuel is expended and the flame is extinguished; for that fire is neither in the flame nor in the fuel, nor yet inside either of the two but above beneath and everywhere — (Parinirvana Sutra ~~Kwan~~ XXXIX).		One of your letters begins with a quotation from one of my own . . . "Remember that there is within man no abiding [[principle]]" — which sentence I find followed by a remark of yours "How about the [[Buddhi\|sixth]] and [[Ātman\|seventh]] principles?" To this I answer, neither Atma nor Buddhi ever were within man, — a little metaphysical axiom that you can study with advantage in Plutarch and Anaxagoras. The latter made his — nous autochrates — the spirit self-potent, the [[Nous\|nous]] that alone recognised [[Noumenon\|noumena]] while the former taught on the authority of [[Plato]] and [[Pythagoras]] that the denominer or this nous always remained without the body; that it floated and overshadowed so to say the extreme part of the man's head, it is only the vulgar who think it is within them . . . Says [[Gautama Buddha\|Buddha]] "you have to get rid entirely of all the subjects of impermanence composing the body that your body should become permanent. The permanent never merges with the impermanent although the two are one. But it is only when all outward appearances are gone that there is left that one principle of life which exists independently of all external phenomena. It is the fire that burns in the eternal light, when the fuel is expended and the flame is extinguished; for that fire is neither in the flame nor in the fuel, nor yet inside either of the two but above beneath and everywhere — (Parinirvana Sutra Kiouen XXXIX).

	{{Col-break\|width=3%}}		{{Col-break\|width=3%}}

Anton Diachenko at 13:06, 30 January 2015

2015-01-30T13:06:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:06, 30 January 2015
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Extracts from Letters of [[Koot Hoomi\|K.H.]] to [[Allan Octavian Hume\|A.O.H.]] and [[Alfred Percy Sinnett\|A.P.S.]] Received by A.P.S. August 13th, 1882.		Extracts from Letters of [[Koot Hoomi\|K.H.]] to [[Allan Octavian Hume\|A.O.H.]] and [[Alfred Percy Sinnett\|A.P.S.]] Received by A.P.S. August 13th, 1882.

	One of your letters begins with a quotation from one of my own . . . "Remember that there is within man no abiding [[principle]]" — which sentence I find followed by a remark of yours "How about the [[Buddhi\|sixth]] and [[Ātman\|seventh]] principles?" To this I answer, neither Atma nor Buddhi ever were within man, — a little metaphysical axiom that you can study with advantage in Plutarch and Anaxagoras. The latter made his — nous autochrates — the spirit self-potent, the [[Nous\|nous]] that alone recognised [[Noumenon\|noumena]] while the former taught on the authority of [[Plato]] and [[Pythagoras]] that the ~~semomnius~~ or this nous always remained without the body; that it floated and overshadowed so to say the extreme part of the man's head, it is only the vulgar who think it is within them . . . Says [[Gautama Buddha\|Buddha]] "you have to get rid entirely of all the subjects of impermanence composing the body that your body should become permanent. The permanent never merges with the impermanent although the two are one. But it is only when all outward appearances are gone that there is left that one principle of life which exists independently of all external phenomena. It is the fire that burns in the eternal light, when the fuel is expended and the flame is extinguished; for that fire is neither in the flame nor in the fuel, nor yet inside either of the two but above beneath and everywhere — (Parinirvana Sutra Kwan XXXIX).		One of your letters begins with a quotation from one of my own . . . "Remember that there is within man no abiding [[principle]]" — which sentence I find followed by a remark of yours "How about the [[Buddhi\|sixth]] and [[Ātman\|seventh]] principles?" To this I answer, neither Atma nor Buddhi ever were within man, — a little metaphysical axiom that you can study with advantage in Plutarch and Anaxagoras. The latter made his — nous autochrates — the spirit self-potent, the [[Nous\|nous]] that alone recognised [[Noumenon\|noumena]] while the former taught on the authority of [[Plato]] and [[Pythagoras]] that the denominer or this nous always remained without the body; that it floated and overshadowed so to say the extreme part of the man's head, it is only the vulgar who think it is within them . . . Says [[Gautama Buddha\|Buddha]] "you have to get rid entirely of all the subjects of impermanence composing the body that your body should become permanent. The permanent never merges with the impermanent although the two are one. But it is only when all outward appearances are gone that there is left that one principle of life which exists independently of all external phenomena. It is the fire that burns in the eternal light, when the fuel is expended and the flame is extinguished; for that fire is neither in the flame nor in the fuel, nor yet inside either of the two but above beneath and everywhere — (Parinirvana Sutra Kwan XXXIX).

	{{Col-break\|width=3%}}		{{Col-break\|width=3%}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:36, 30 January 2015
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Extracts from Letters of [[Koot Hoomi\|K.H.]] to [[Allan Octavian Hume\|A.O.H.]] and [[Alfred Percy Sinnett\|A.P.S.]] Received by A.P.S. August 13th, 1882.		Extracts from Letters of [[Koot Hoomi\|K.H.]] to [[Allan Octavian Hume\|A.O.H.]] and [[Alfred Percy Sinnett\|A.P.S.]] Received by A.P.S. August 13th, 1882.

	One of your letters begins with a quotation from one of my own . . . "Remember that there is within man no abiding [[principle]]" — which sentence I find followed by a remark of yours "How about the [[Buddhi\|sixth]] and [[Ātman\|seventh]] principles?" To this I answer, neither Atma nor Buddhi ever were within man, — a little metaphysical axiom that you can study with advantage in Plutarch and Anaxagoras. The latter made his — nous autochrates — the spirit self-potent, the [[Nous\|nous]] that alone recognised [[Noumenon\|noumena]] while the former taught on the authority of [[Plato]] and [[Pythagoras]] that the denominer or this nous always remained without the body; that it floated and overshadowed so to say the extreme part of the man's head, it is only the vulgar who think it is within them . . . Says [[Gautama Buddha\|Buddha]] "you have to get rid entirely of all the subjects of impermanence composing the body that your body should become permanent. The permanent never merges with the impermanent although the two are one. But it is only when all outward appearances are gone that there is left that one principle of life which exists independently of all external phenomena. It is the fire that burns in the eternal light, when the fuel is expended and the flame is extinguished; for that fire is neither in the flame nor in the fuel, nor yet inside either of the two but above beneath and everywhere — (Parinirvana Sutra ~~Kwan~~ XXXIX).		One of your letters begins with a quotation from one of my own . . . "Remember that there is within man no abiding [[principle]]" — which sentence I find followed by a remark of yours "How about the [[Buddhi\|sixth]] and [[Ātman\|seventh]] principles?" To this I answer, neither Atma nor Buddhi ever were within man, — a little metaphysical axiom that you can study with advantage in Plutarch and Anaxagoras. The latter made his — nous autochrates — the spirit self-potent, the [[Nous\|nous]] that alone recognised [[Noumenon\|noumena]] while the former taught on the authority of [[Plato]] and [[Pythagoras]] that the denominer or this nous always remained without the body; that it floated and overshadowed so to say the extreme part of the man's head, it is only the vulgar who think it is within them . . . Says [[Gautama Buddha\|Buddha]] "you have to get rid entirely of all the subjects of impermanence composing the body that your body should become permanent. The permanent never merges with the impermanent although the two are one. But it is only when all outward appearances are gone that there is left that one principle of life which exists independently of all external phenomena. It is the fire that burns in the eternal light, when the fuel is expended and the flame is extinguished; for that fire is neither in the flame nor in the fuel, nor yet inside either of the two but above beneath and everywhere — (Parinirvana Sutra Kiouen XXXIX).

	{{Col-break\|width=3%}}		{{Col-break\|width=3%}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:06, 30 January 2015
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Extracts from Letters of [[Koot Hoomi\|K.H.]] to [[Allan Octavian Hume\|A.O.H.]] and [[Alfred Percy Sinnett\|A.P.S.]] Received by A.P.S. August 13th, 1882.		Extracts from Letters of [[Koot Hoomi\|K.H.]] to [[Allan Octavian Hume\|A.O.H.]] and [[Alfred Percy Sinnett\|A.P.S.]] Received by A.P.S. August 13th, 1882.

	One of your letters begins with a quotation from one of my own . . . "Remember that there is within man no abiding [[principle]]" — which sentence I find followed by a remark of yours "How about the [[Buddhi\|sixth]] and [[Ātman\|seventh]] principles?" To this I answer, neither Atma nor Buddhi ever were within man, — a little metaphysical axiom that you can study with advantage in Plutarch and Anaxagoras. The latter made his — nous autochrates — the spirit self-potent, the [[Nous\|nous]] that alone recognised [[Noumenon\|noumena]] while the former taught on the authority of [[Plato]] and [[Pythagoras]] that the ~~semomnius~~ or this nous always remained without the body; that it floated and overshadowed so to say the extreme part of the man's head, it is only the vulgar who think it is within them . . . Says [[Gautama Buddha\|Buddha]] "you have to get rid entirely of all the subjects of impermanence composing the body that your body should become permanent. The permanent never merges with the impermanent although the two are one. But it is only when all outward appearances are gone that there is left that one principle of life which exists independently of all external phenomena. It is the fire that burns in the eternal light, when the fuel is expended and the flame is extinguished; for that fire is neither in the flame nor in the fuel, nor yet inside either of the two but above beneath and everywhere — (Parinirvana Sutra Kwan XXXIX).		One of your letters begins with a quotation from one of my own . . . "Remember that there is within man no abiding [[principle]]" — which sentence I find followed by a remark of yours "How about the [[Buddhi\|sixth]] and [[Ātman\|seventh]] principles?" To this I answer, neither Atma nor Buddhi ever were within man, — a little metaphysical axiom that you can study with advantage in Plutarch and Anaxagoras. The latter made his — nous autochrates — the spirit self-potent, the [[Nous\|nous]] that alone recognised [[Noumenon\|noumena]] while the former taught on the authority of [[Plato]] and [[Pythagoras]] that the denominer or this nous always remained without the body; that it floated and overshadowed so to say the extreme part of the man's head, it is only the vulgar who think it is within them . . . Says [[Gautama Buddha\|Buddha]] "you have to get rid entirely of all the subjects of impermanence composing the body that your body should become permanent. The permanent never merges with the impermanent although the two are one. But it is only when all outward appearances are gone that there is left that one principle of life which exists independently of all external phenomena. It is the fire that burns in the eternal light, when the fuel is expended and the flame is extinguished; for that fire is neither in the flame nor in the fuel, nor yet inside either of the two but above beneath and everywhere — (Parinirvana Sutra Kwan XXXIX).

	{{Col-break\|width=3%}}		{{Col-break\|width=3%}}