Theos-Talk Archives (April 1995 Message tl00177)

Alan: < How is psyche defined as atma-buddhi? and why?
Psyche [Greek] can mean "mind" or "soul" or "self" or
all of these.  You seem to be using ego in the above
comment in a _non_ Jungian sense: this could confuse
some of our readers when it appears alongside the
Jungian interpretation, could it not?>

It is, indeed, confusing.  I suppose I meant "higher psyche."
Actually the psyche, as defined by Jung, would be HPB's atma-
buddhi-manas-kama-prana, the lower two principles pertaining
more to the physical.  (Eldon, in which principle do the
instincts lie? Kama would be my guess)  Jung defines the
psyche with a very broad brush as just about everything
except the physical body; he also says it has movement
forward and backward as well as inward and outward.
In several places he gives the equation
psyche=consciousness, but in other places includes the
personal unconscious in it.  But he also says it preexists
and postexists the ego (which according to Jung grows and
developes along with the body or 'soma') and this tends to
equate it with the atma-buddhi.  He does mention a higher
and lower psyche, but he doesn't care for this idea; he
also doesn't like the terms subconscious or superconscious.
However, he does say that consciousness is rather on a
scale and that "there is a lower as well as an upper threshold
for psychic events" and then admits the possibility that the
psyche too has upper and lower ends of a "psychic scale."
(On the Nature of the Psyche).  His psyche has a lot of
parallels with the physical body, and the body is built
on the idea of upper and lower ranges, so Jung credits
ranges to the psyche as well.  For this reason, I think that
we can talk about a higher psyche and lower psyche and
remain within a Jungian framework.

I think that I was using ego in the Jungian sense of a
complex, but apologise if not.

BTW, Jung had little regard for theosophy, and says, among
other things, that it "caters to lazy thinking" (On Psychic
Energy).

Jerry S.