Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00818)

Richard Ihle wrote>>
>>No, if the Theosophical Movement is to take off again, it will only be, in
my >>opinion, because a ~new, simple, practical, easily practiced
developmental
>>technique~ suddenly becomes suggested by the Psychogenetic component of the
>>PTP.  One that is just a toenail in advance of existing meditation,
>>visualization, self-affirmation etc. approaches.

Jerry Schueler writes>
>	 Are you suggesting a new technique of some kind, possible with
>buddhi-manas intent?  Will the 21st century be ready for buddhi-manas
>ventures?

R.I.>
Jerry, do you remember from a previous discussion that you succeeded in
convincing me that visual imagery was not incompatible with Buddhi-manas
consciousness?

I think we are not yet completely agreed, however.  The possibility may exist
that you believe that in a certain sense that the image ~is~ itself the state
of consciousness.  However, from my perspective the image is just a potential
"product" of the physical brain. An inner image may only have psychic
significance when it is "shaped and informed" by the higher perception
implied by Buddhi-manas consciousness; it only may have true magical
signicance when it is ~volitionally~ shaped and informed by a curious kind of
"intentiality" at the Buddhi-manas level of consciousness.

How can Buddhi-manas consciousness "do" anything at all?  Well, one has to
keep in mind that much of Eastern thinking keeps insisting that ~Buddhi~
involves the faculty of "primordial discrimination" or "initial
apprehension."  Naming, and then verbally thinking about something (or
perhaps even manipulating "inner pictorial correlatives" for the people who
may do their "thinking" in a non-verbal way), involves a lower "gradient" of
consciousness--the ~manas~.  ~Buddhi-manas~ is the needed "operational
~upadhi~" in-between.    

But Buddhi-manas consciousness should probably not be thought of as such a
rare thing. If it were not for its automatic ability to discriminate things
for us, we would undoubtedly have a much more tedious time going through the
world.  We would have to first wait for manas to tell us, "This is a chair;
empirical experience and logic tells us it is used for such and such.  This
is a table; empirical experience and logic tells us it is used for such and
such."

If we have an inner picture, it is Buddhi-manas which gives us the first
conscious apprehension of what it is.  If we are magicians, it is
Buddhi-manas which gives us the first opportunity to ~will~ what it shall be.


Now, critics often try to invalidate inner pictures as vehicles for any valid
content by saying that psychics and mystics tend to see visual forms that are
only related to their own cultural traditions.  For example, St. Joan doesn't
see a Hindu Mother Kali, and Ramakrishna doesn't see a Christian Archangel.
 I think Carl Jung's work goes a long way toward countering this.  While I do
not believe there are "universal pictures" which have their own independent
existence floating around out there, I am quite open to the possibility that
there are common "Buddhi-manas apprehensions" which would tend to recreate
pictures with somewhat similar essential features again and again among the
sensitives.

My overall point is that I already believe that you, Jerry Schueler, have
already written eight books on "Buddhi-manas ventures.". . . 

Godspeed, 

Richard Ihle

(Incidentally, while my own current "hot technique prospect" would obviously
have to try to involve Buddhi-manas consciousness, it is not related to
visualization--I'm a Word Master. . . .)