Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00973)

In a message dated 96-04-23 21:46:32 EDT, Eldon writes>

>In reading your analysis, which follows, though, I found it difficult
>to wade through, not being completely conversant with your home-made
>terminology. I'm sure that if you translated the same ideas into
>Buddhist or traditional theosophical terms, I'd readily pick up on it.

Richard Ihle writes>
I think I get credit for *semi-Selves* and for possibly being the first one
to use *Psychogenesis* (however, this is a little shaky considering that it
is such a "natural" following *Cosmogenesis* and *Anthropogenesis*).

*Self* ("Undifferentiated Consciousness," *Atman*, *Purusha*, "Primordial *I
AM") is widely used, of course.

*Substance*, capitalized, (*Prakriti*, "Primal Matter") has been used by
others.

*semi-Self* merely refers to an "false ego-formation" which can result from
the interaction ("contamination") of the Self with the "circular
interpenetrating continuum" of Substance (energy/matter up through Spirit).
 It is the *I AM* deluded in the sense of "I am [something or other]."

The reason I try to stay away from traditional terminology is that I long ago
had to face the fact that my meditatively derived understandings did not
always correspond very well with the conventional definitions for terms I
thought applied to them.  Thinking that it was unlikely, for example, that I
could get the whole religious world to suddenly accept "Spirit" as the
equivalent for *Buddhi*, I more or less just dropped the latter term.

[Even worse than this, however, is the fact that the "sequence" in my version
of Psychogenesis does not correspond to the conventional "order" of the
*chakras* in a very crucial respect:  the *Svadhishthana* should have, in my
view,  the "first position," not the second (it can "look" like the lowest
anyway using a standing diagram).  I regard it as a "latent" center until a
certain point in physical maturation when it then can operate as "point of
egress" for the "animating force" (*prana*).  In this view, the *kundalini*
would begin toward the front of the body near the genitals almost between the
legs, pass through the legs, striking the *muladhara* and then proceed
upwards as conventionally described.]

Anyway, you can start to see what the problem is with conventional
terminology when one's own theosophy simply won't cooperate.  All this
notwithstanding, here is a little table of correspondences (*Chronological
Age* [potential egoic delusions of the next Cycle begin at the mid-point of
the present]; *Cycle*; *Possible Eastern Term*):

1-7. . . . .Animating. . . . .*Prana*
7-14. . . . .Physical. . . . .*Sthula*
14-21. . . . .Desire-Feeling. . . . .*Kama*
21-28. . . . .Desire-Mental. . . . .*Kama-Manas*
28-35. . . . .Mental. . . . .*Manas*
*35-42. . . . .Spirit-Mental. . . . .*Buddhi-Manas*
*42-49. . . . .Spirit. . . . .*Buddhi*

*Doubtful that these last two have any "cyclic significance"

Thank you for your passing interest, Eldon.  However, I think it is a bad
sign for my "brand" of Psychogenesis that even I start to fall asleep when I
start explaining it. . . .

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle