Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00244)

Rich:< There is higher and lower Manas, there is Buddhi and astral
sensitivity, and we have GOT to get them straight or we will never get
out of the labyrinth!>
 Actually, I read this particular article over 20 years ago, and am
very familiar with the technical distinctions that you have noted. I wonder
though, just how many theosophists do? Who knows, for example, when they
have an experience of some kind, whether it is within their higher or lower
manas? Most people think in terms of "mental" which equates to "psychic."
 Its just plain ol English, and I am sorry, but the old technical
theosophical termonology is outdated today and seldom even used. Someone in a
past message mentioned that CWL's termonology is more prevalent and popular
than HPB's. This is true. I myself prefer the termonology of CWL (my
apologies to all of you CWL-haters in the audience). If I get a "message" -
say an esoteric idea that is difficult to put into words - how do I tell
whether it is from my Buddhi, my "higher manas" or my "lower manas" (which is
not always connected to sex or violence or the gutter, BTW)? It takes
training, my friend. Years of training and study. There are few who have
done this, and probably fewer who would even want to try. So in my
discussions of psychism, I am using the word in its normal, everyday, usage,
and not in the technical theosophical sense of "lower manas." Apparently
this causes some problems. But, exactly how do you think I should be
phrasing my postings - with HPB's terminology (which itself changed as she
matured)? With Judge's. With G de Puruckers? I have a very sore point on
this subject (like a burr under my saddle) and early on told everyone on
Theos-l that I was using CWL termonology or possible New Age, but that I
wouldn't use theosophical termonology until someone could tell me exactly
what it is. So far, no one has been able to do this, although some of
Eldon's postings come close.
My personal feeling is that until you directly experience Buddhi, and even
Atman, they are just words that you use without any comprehension. Once you
have experienced them then, yes, you can use them in your writings and
messages. But, who will understand you then?

 Jerry S.

PS. Sorry about the earlier posting without a message. I am posting these
from AOL, and am new to its editor. Its a long story, but the gist is that
with all of the 10-cent postings from theos-l, CompuServe charged my
charge-card folks more than they were willing to pay. I have since paid the
credit card folks, but it will take several days before CompuServe will let
me back on. So, meanwhile, I am at AOL (when I can get on, that is).