Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00142)

Responses to Richard I:

>Using such an alternative, ~Atma-Buddhi~ might be regarded as having no
>specific content or attributes--just potential.
	From the viewpoint of material manifestation, Atma-Buddhi
is indeed "just" potential.  This is somewhat like looking at E=mc(2)
and viewing energy as potential matter.  IOW, it is a valid alternative.

>  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.
	Yes.  This equates exactly to my "I" and "Not I" immediately
after their split into dualism.  The unified I-Not-I Monad equates to Paratman.

>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?
	You may be right about we being the only interested people.  Yes,
is does have to do with magic, and I detailed this whole process in my
ENOCHIAN PHYSICS, which, after all, is a book on how magic works.  I
admit that I borrowed heavily (some critics suggest too heavily) on
Theosophy.

>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. 
	Yes, but this statement requires us to define "magical
attributes."  Finding gold, or fame, or a great sex partner, or the
winning lottery number are all examples of abilities that you will
*not* find inherent in Atma-Buddhi.  
	Each cosmic plane downward/outward from divinity
leads deeper into space, time, and form.  The physical is the lowest,
and the farthest from Truth.  By this kind of argument, it can be
logically deducted that the astral plane is truer than the physical
simply because it is closer to divinity.  I believe that this conclusion
is a valid one.  From a Jungian perspective, for example, we lose
our persona on the astral plane, and thus our actions are more 
authentic in dreams than they are in the waking state.  Carried
further, it is logical to assume that the higher planes are less
false, more open and honest, than the lower.  Time and space
are not as constrictive.  Thus, one characteristic of Atma-Buddhi
is its ability to move through spacetime without the constrictions or
limitations that we must live with on the lower planes.  So,
the past and future lie open to an Atma-Buddhic consciousness.
This is one example of its inherent magical abilities.  When we
shift our consciousness to the Atma-Buddhi (spiritual) level,
then such magical knowledge becomes available to us, if we
are able to recall it later.

> 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.
	Technically, yes.  Real magic (defined simply as making
changes in accordance with our will) occurs when we shift consciousness
to the spiritual level while holding a willed goal in mind.  The will serves
to give direction to the spaceless and timeless viewpoint that one
temporarily acquires at the Atma-Buddhi level.

>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.
	Exactly, although the Gnosis obtained by the experience
is pretty damn magical all by itself.  To do magic, and bring about a
specific change, the experience must be accompanied by a willed
desire to that end.

>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.
	Pictorial imagery is best.  But this can be accompanied
by "talking to yourself" for emphasis.


>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~.
	These names are too sophisticated in any context.

> 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.
	To me kama is emotion.  I see desire as somewhat higher
(kama is astral plane, while desire is causal plane--but this is all
just semantics).  Manas must always be split into higher and lower.
I agree that lower manas is verbal thought.  Higher manas is the
image maker.  Kama-manas is cognition tainted by affect or emotion.
Desire is not always a bad thing -- e.g., the desire to help others, and
the desire for self-improvement are good things.  Your  "universalized 
Light of direct apprehension" requires an object--what is it being
apprehended?  My direct apprehension may not be the same as your
direct apprehension, although i would suggest that most of the
discrepancies lie in the interpretations rather than in the direct
experiences.

>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.  
	Yes, now we are getting into archetypes of the collective
unconscious--the agreements or rules of the game of life during this
manvantara.  But this collective image and its associated energy
is channeled into the individual, directed by will.  It must be stepped
down, like a transformer.

>  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.") 
	It is the engine in the sense that it, together with the will,
serves to direct the energy downward into the desired manifestation
or change.  The image and will serve as the transformer.  The image
or symbol is the language of the psyche or atma-buddhi-manas.  The
archetypes communicate to the ego via symbols and images, automatically
in dreams, and consciously in altered states, certainly those bordering
on samadhi.  For the ego to concentrate on an image, directed by the
will, in the face of the Self, reverses the normal process and "primes
the pump" so to speak for the desired change.

>The "motive force" as well the "universal component" may only 
<come in that ultra-split-moment before the image ~becomes~ an 
>image.
	This is the moment in which the image of the ego
becomes the symbol from the Self (Jungian Self or atma-
buddhi).  These images may not be the same, and the
Self's image, coming from an archetype, is numinous
or spiritually charged with energy.  The magician then
directs this energy to bring about the desired change.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

Note:  Of course all of this nice theoretical framework
leaves out karma.  Since I believe in karma, I am
reluctant to sit down and practice this kind of magical
operation lightly.