Re: Origin of Sense of Self
Oct 11, 1995 10:39 AM
by Jerry Schueler
<From the above, it would seem that it is Manas that provides the sense of I
<am I, the sense of self. Elsewhere in the KEY, HPB tells us that the Monad
<(Atma/Buddhi) is passive, which would indicate that it cannot/does not think
<or "see itself", therefore cannot perceive itself at all, even though an
<individuality. It is Manas which allows or provides this perception. The
<Monad is the power to perceive while Manas is the perceiver.
<Could you explain your position a bit more, because I cannot reconcile your
<statements with what HPB says?
Manas does provide a sense of I. It is a more defined sense. The
sense of self, however, has to begin with Atma. But this is a rather
vauge and undefined sense, in which a feeling of separation is
present, but no definition. I don't mean to say that oneness is not
there, because it is, in an overwhelming abundance. But the
teaching of a very subtle sense of separation at the highest level
can be found in Mahayana Buddhism and other nondualistic
schools, if not theosophy. I am not real sure if I would call
theosophy a non-dualistic teaching, although the Adepts suggest
it in some of their statements. Mahayana Buddhism (which
includes Tibetan) certainly is non-dualistic. According to the
non-dualists, there is One which splits and becomes Many.
The sense of separation accompanies everything on the Many
side, no matter how "high" it may be. And Atma is on the
KEY:< For it is the Buddhi-Manas which is called the Causal body, . . . >
Please someone show this quote to Rich who will
doubtless take gas :-)
KEY:< for Atman is the Universal ALL, and becomes the
Higher-Self of man only in conjunction with BUDDHI, its vehicle. >
Here Buddhi is clearly called a vehicle or body. It is
the subtle body of atma, and together they form the causal body.
KEY:<KEY, p. 176, The Spiritual divine Ego, is the Spiritual soul or Buddhi, in
close union with Manas, the mind-principle, withouth which IT IS NO EGO AT
ALL, BUT ONLY THE ATMIC VEHICLE. (Caps mine)>
The causal body is not an ego, or defined self, per se. It is only
when it combines with manas to form the mental body that we have an ego.
This is why I have been saying that our ego resides on the mental plane.
I totally agree with your quotes, and have no problem with relating them to what
I said about separation. Don't think that you need an ego in order to feel a
sense of separation or a sense of self - because you don't. The ego is a
self. The vauge undefined sense of separation and self that we find in atma
gets very defined on the lower planes. You might think of this as a general
sense of I slowly becoming I am I, which is a more defined self. Also, we have
to remember that for every I, there is a corresponding not-I or environment or
world which also slowly becomes more defined as we sink onto the lower
planes. According to non-dualism, there is no subjectivity without objectivity.
Another thing to remember here is that all of our lower six principles
exist below the Abyss. This leaves only Atma for all of the planes above the
Abyss. Actually, we have more bodies/principles than these, but HPB only gave
out the lower 7. Hope this helps.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application