Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00335)

Richard Ihle writes>
>>And again, that fundamental premise, it seems to me, is that
Undifferentiated
>>Consciousness comes FIRST.

Paul K. writes>
>Do we know what we mean by that statement? Yes - you read it in Theosophical
>articles again and again. But what does it really mean? The idea that some
>"conscousness" whatever that is, incarnates or controls a body?
[snip]
>How does an incorporeal mind control a corporeal entity?

Richard Ihle writes>
Good questions, Paul.

One little point:  I believe that in Sankya it is generally held that
~Purusha~ (Self, Soul, Atman, Absolute, Undifferentiated Consciousness,  Pure
Consciousness) is simply a "witness"; it does not "control" bodies or
anything else.

The controlling "incorporeal mind" you referred to above, and which may or
may not be the basis for the "mind-body problem," is probably closer to what
HPB might designate as the "human soul," ~manas consciousness~ in one of its
three principal conditions or "upadhis"--kama-manas, manas, Buddhi-manas.

(An ~upadhi~ seems to be some sort of combination "concealing
vehicle/limitation" for or superimposed on Purusha.  Also, it is good to keep
in mind that everything energy/physical, emotional, mental, and Spiritual is
evolving of and within ~Prakriti~ (Substance); Purusha (Undifferentiated
Consciousness) can be "contaminated" by means of its "verisimilitude" with
Spirit, but other than that it remains on its own "side"--aloof and apart.)

Now, however, if one associates the dimension of "mind" with manas, it must
necessarily expand the definition of the latter beyond mere "mental
activities" or "thinking."  A "mind-thought package" would differ from a
simple, "identity-neutral," automatic thought-event of the brain by virtue
not only of the added potential to operate as a temporary "ego-formation"
(deluded semi-Self) but also the potential for "control" of the
"mind-thought-BODY package" as well.

--Words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words. . . .

If I correctly read between the lines of your comments, Paul, I detected a
certain irritation with the way theosophical words often roll down the
assembly line, resulting in a big end-product of uncertain meaning--or no
meaning at all.  If this is the case, I share your sentiment.

Nevertheless, as I have suggested many times previously, I am convinced that
all the grand theosophical systems--whether embodied in ancient religions or
the cosmogenesis and anthropogenesis found in THE SECRET DOCTRINE--were
initially the analogical creations of advanced individuals who were experts
in witnessing their own states of consciousness.  Alas, perhaps we poor
theosophists just get abstract philosophy and theology for our
"mythology-mines"--and not nice stories like the Greeks and Romans etc. . . .

Indeed, ~Undifferentiated Consciousness~ would be the most boring of subjects
were it not for the fact that one can ~actually~ approach something like it
(~Atma-Buddhi~manas?) in meditation. When all the other ~I am this-or-that's~
fall away and one yet remains "conscious-without-content," one becomes more
interested--even perhaps beyond its psychogenetic reality and toward its
possible "extension" as cosmogenetic "analogical fact."

However, you asked the most important question of all, the Adept's Question:
 ~How does the incorporeal control the corporeal?~

It does not matter that you may or may not have asked the question from the
point of view of someone who--not yet persuaded that there is a demonstrable
link between the two--is not yet fully persuaded that it is possible.

It is still a good question.

It does not matter that an Adept, on the other hand, may or may not simply
continue to ask the question in order to make himself or herself a better
Adept--i.e., able to do more and more ~practical things in this world~ more
and more easily.

It is still a good question.

Thanks for raising it, Paul, and

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle