Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00821)

Some comments and responses to Richard:
>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 recall my argument, but I wasn't certain how convinced you were.
Buddhi-manas relates to the casual plane, which although is above the human
mind (mental plane) is nevertheless below the Abyss, and thus within form.
Consciousness, even in the causal plane, is subject to imagery.

> The possibility may exist
>that you believe that in a certain sense that the image ~is~ itself the state
>of consciousness. 
	In a sense, yes.

> However, from my perspective the image is just a potential
>"product" of the physical brain.
	You lost me.  Are you saying that all images are related
to the physical brain?  This cannot be true, because we view
images in devachan, without a brain.  In fact, viewing images
is just about all we do in devachan.

>. 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.
	Agreed.  This is very similar to the constellation of an archetype
in Jungian psychology.  When you speak of "magical significance" you 
are talking about the True Will, which means that the shaping is done by
the inner god.  The archetypal level and the level of the inner god are atmic,
but this does filter down through the buddhi-manas.  I see buddhi-manas
as a manifestation in space, time and form of the atma.

>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."  
	Buddhi is an uphadi or vehicle or bases.  When used with spirit,
it is atma-buddhi, a vehicle for spiritual consciousness, or what is
sometimes called the spiritual body.  When used with mind, it is buddhi-
manas, a vehicle for intuitive consciousness or the causal body.  Eldon
and others don't like all my talking about bodies, but I am coming at this
from the viewpoint of experience, and when out-of-body, it seems like
we have subtle bodies at these levels.  The main reason for this is 
that we are still within duality, and have a subject-object viewpoint.
The only experience that is devoid of having a body is non-duality
where subject and object are experienced as one.
	The terms  "primordial discrimination" and "initial
apprehension."  are apt, because at this level we are immediately
beneath the Abyss and thus at the very root of all material manifestation.

>But Buddhi-manas consciousness should probably not be thought of as such a
>rare thing.
	Right.  It is, in fact, so close to us, that we take it for granted. 
People who have buddhi-manas experiences are loath to discuss them for
fear of condemnation.  Having an inner voice tell you something that saves
your life, for example, smacks of insanity to most people, and so nothing
is said about it.  As people come out of the closet, so to speak, such
things will be understood to be pretty normal.

>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.
	Buddhi-manas pictures are general ones.  For example,
the general idea of "chair" is buddhi-manas.  The various types and sizes
of chairs are at the manas and kama-manas level.  In Jungian terms,
they are symbols, the language of the archetypes, which Jung carefully
distinguishes from signs--normal detailed pictures that we can cognitively
comprehend.  We cannot fully comprehend a symbol, and the more we
look at it, the more we get out of it (we interpret symbols through signs).

>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.
	Right.  Signs are cultural, but symbols are universal.  We always
speak and communicate in terms of signs, which we can understand.  We
can experience a symbol, but can never communicate that symbol to
others without breaking it up into signs.  This is exactly what is meant
by esoteric (can't be put into words) and exoteric (can be put into words).
Symbols are esoteric, while signs are exoteric.

> 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.
	The whole tradition of occultism and mysticism teaches the
essential and inherent oneness of all things.  Thus the idea of a
collective unconscious is a bridge between psychology and the occult.
The Abyss is itself a symbol, and while we can think of it in many ways,
we will never fully be able to come to grips with it.  The East uses the
analogy of a wave rising up from the ocean in the same way as our
personality or ego rises up from the unconscious.  Buddhi-manas lies
at the interface between the wave and the ocean.  It is at the dividing
line between the personal  and collective unconscious and partakes
of both.

>My overall point is that I already believe that you, Jerry Schueler, have
>already written eight books on "Buddhi-manas ventures.". . . 
	Thanks.  But I doubt that these will benefit the Theosophical
Movement.  The one I was referring to, is more theosophical.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI