Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00134)

>>Richard Ihle writes>>
>>Now you suggest a very interesting thing--viz., that when Buddhi-manas
>>consciousness is used as the "upadhi" for Atma-Buddhi, certain psychic,
>>magical, or other "paranormal" attributes which "are inherent" in the
latter
>>can be carried into and manifest themselves in the former.

>Jerry S. writes>
>This is exactly what I am suggesting.  Yes.
 
Richard Ihle writes>
I agree that the matter can be looked at in the way it is described above.
 There is perhaps another way as well.

Using such an alternative, ~Atma-Buddhi~ might be regarded as having no
specific content or attributes--just potential.  As ~Atma~ (~Purusa~) may be
thought of as "Undifferentiated Conciousness,"  so too, perhaps, can ~Buddhi~
("Spirit") also be thought as having a Nature (on the ~Prakriti/"Stuff"~ side
of things) which is so "rarefied" that it has no differentiation in and of
itself.  It is a component of (thus in a sense "permeates") all "Cosmic
Stuff" (~Prakriti~) more gross than itself.

Now, Jerry, we may be the only two people on this planet who are interested
in this bit of comparative theosophical phantasmagoria.  It has to do with
developing an adequate heuristic overview of the Magical Operation, doesn't
it?

In the first view, which you concurred with, it would necessary that "certain
psychic, magical, or other paranormal attributes" be ~inherent~ in the nature
of Atma-Buddhi itself.  You asked in an earlier post, "What happens when
'improving Self-awareness' results in the awareness that 'psychic, magical,
etc. abilites' are inherent within our higher Self?  What if 'Self-awareness'
and 'abilites' are the same thing?"

In the second view, these questions may be answered in this fashion:  the
attributes/abilities are not inherent, or in any way synonymous with
Atma-Buddhi; it is only the ~potential~ for manifestation of the advanced
attributes/abilities which comes into being by an individual's approach to
Atma-Buddhi by means of utilizing its "upadhi," Buddhi-manas consciousness.
 Self-awareness and preternatural ability is not the same thing; however, the
advanced practice of the latter is not possible without an advanced degree of
the former.

Perhaps that is all you meant, anyway--that it is just ~the potential~ for
more Universal Magical Operations (as opposed to those which merely succeed
thanks to the person himself or herself becoming the "custom-designed,"
"astrally self-whipped" workhorse) which becomes possible in Buddhi-manas
consciousness.

In short, attaining higher consciousness may not in itself produce any
magical events; however, volitionally "doing something while in the context
of higher consciousness" may be something else again.

What can you volitionally do?  Well, for two things, you can talk to
yourself, or you can create pictorial imagery.  Let us choose the latter,
because, based on a previous exchange, this has the greatest chance for the
s--- hitting the fan between us.

My own view is that within the psychogenetic context it is a mistake to try
to get too sophisticated in trying to define ~kama, kama-manas, manas, and
Buddhi-manas~.  To me, it is useful merely to think of ~kama~ as desire and
that it is normally "attached" to an inner picture of some sort.  I know that
you define ~manas~ as "image-maker"; unfortunately, however, I cannot agree.
 To me, ~manas~ is "verbal thought"--i.e, words or other symbols used in
mental process.  Thus, ~kama-manas~ is thought tainted by like/dislike
(desire) in some way; ~manas~ is dispassionate mentation; ~Buddhi-manas~ is
the "universalized Light of direct apprehension" informing thought.

Now, how could such a simplified perspective be helpful in understanding the
relationship between pictorial imagery and magical operation?

Well, it is clear to me that a person sitting in a chair who suddenly wants
ice cream must first get a little inner image of himself or herself getting
up and going to the refrigerator.  It makes no difference whether the
individual is aware of this image or not--it must be first the image, then
the action.  Now, the reason that all people in the world are not also
motivated by this particular person's desire-charged inner image is that it
has been created within a momentary context of desire-feeling
consciousness--i.e., very heavy toward the "differentiated" side of things.  

What about an image that is in some "association" with a more
"Undifferentiated" state of consciousness like Buddhi-manas?  Well, the
underlying idea is that the content of the image would not now be "confined"
to the individual because it would be at least partially comprised of the
rarefied component of manifestation which is universally shared and
indivisible.  

No s--- hitting the fan in all of this, you say?  How about this:  the inner
image ~once formed~ is itself probably not the actual engine for any higher
magic.  (It could easily be the vehicle for desire, however, as I believe it
is with many if not most individuals who think they are "magicians.")  The
"motive force" as well the "universal component" may only come in that
ultra-split-moment before the image ~becomes~ an image.  Just as the
Buddhi-manas suggests the ultra-split-moment before thought "congeals" into
word, so also, perhaps, in the realm of images does the Real Power continue
to reside in the Inchoate. . . .

Paper covers rock; rock breaks scissors; scissors cuts paper; Buddhic
Intentionality conquers all. . . . 

Anyway, this is what I "suspect," as Jerry Schueler always pleases me by
saying. . . .

Godspeed,

Richard