Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00404)

Paul K. wrote:
>> The idea that some
>>"conscousness" whatever that is, incarnates or controls a body?
>>How does it do this?
>

Jerry S. replied:
>	By a process of self-expression.  One of the inherent
>characteristics of the Divine Monad is its creativity--it has an
>innate desire to self-express.  But it is the Ego that does it, not
>the personal ego.  The ego-body relationship is two-way, while
>the Ego--body relationship is one-way.  Think of it as buddhi vs
>manas, if that makes it any better.  The body is an expression of
>atma-buddhi, but manas is its expression too and so there
>is a sharing of control between manas and the physical body.

This is the way most theosophists see it. The problem that I see, is that
it's all very unclear - not just the way you wrote it, but the way all
theosophical texts state it - More questions are raised than are answered.

What do we mean by the Ego? or by Manas? Sure, I can read the texts and get
the definition there. But do we know what we are talking about when we use
these words? Most neurophysiologists have trouble with even the notion that
a "mind" somewhere controls the body ("the ghost in the machine") and here
Theosophists are proposing "atma-buddhi, the Ego, Manas, etc..It's all too
much to explain the phenomenom of the human being. Plus - it all has to be
taken on faith! In that sense - it isn't a science (divine or otherwise).

How about starting with "Occam's razer" and not proposing more entities than
are absolutely necessary? I would then begin with the question of whether we
need to postulate anything other than the physical brain to explain
consciousness - and go from there.

Any ideas?

Paul K.