Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00066)

In a message dated 9/6/98 8:14:18 AM Central Daylight Time, he/she (just
kidding, Dal) writes:

<<
 The reason for this is that as you grasp, the source of
 CONSCIOUSNESS is the ONE SPIRIT and its incarnated "Ray" in every
 being, -- and, in mankind this is sharpened and focused in the
 Manas/mind.  It has become awake and gives independence.
  >>

Well, now, let me fall off my reader's chair for just a moment and do a little
bold talking before I quickly reassume my more judicious silent-sedentary
posture among those involved with this list. . . .

First, let me put everyone on notice that I come to you as a Theosophist; that
is, someone who speaks in some degree from his or her own authority as a
result of at least some personal experience with the "less differentiated"
("divine") states of consciousness.  I am not putting up with small ~t~
~theosophist~ to describe myself any longer.  The capital ~T~ belongs to me as
a perfectly proper mystic, and it is those who need to cite a footnote every
time they assert it is raining or shining who can have the godamn small ~t~
from now on.

I may be a new political party of one, but since I have long given up hope
that the Theosophical Society is likely to accomplish much more in this world
in light of its ever more clear "definitional grab" (defining ~Theosophy~ as
HPB's "indefectable" presentation of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis), I say
to hell with diplomatically trying to slow that particular Titanic's journey
to the bottom and from now on I will just be happy alone and call myself a
~Theosophist~, no matter what confusion it causes among the brand-name
bunglers of the global opportunity the Founders gave us.

Thus, I hereby exercise my prerogative to speak from my own authority as a
Theosophist; therefore, you can and should hereby exercise your prerogative to
intuitively rank the validity of my authority from 0% to 100% (I can assure
you it is neither 0% nor 100%, but let me warn you that if you give me even a
1% rating out of charity, you will be admitting the truth of my whole premise:
i.e., that it is possible that even a common person like me can know something
as a result of his or her "transcendental" development).

On to the issue of "the source of CONSCIOUSNESS [being] the ONE SPIRIT and its
incarnated 'Ray,' etc.":

Undoubtedly, much if not most of what Dal and others write about this is true
when looked at in a certain way.  Terminology, of course, is one killer when
trying to communicate these abstract concepts.  An even more formidable
killer, in my opinion, however, is the failure to realize where these abstract
concepts originally came from, even those recorded in THE SECRET DOCTRINE.

I, at least, have no doubt whatever that Theosophists of the past utilized the
"analogical method."  That is, they were careful observers of their own inner
states of consciousness during meditative sessions and then used the commonly
reversed "as below, so Above" technique to put together a larger world view.
HPB's slightly modified version of the famous axiom says it all:  (approx.)
"The breath became a stone; the stone a plant; the plant an animal; the animal
a man; the man an angel; the angel [God/a god?]."  Only a person who has never
sat in meditation and tried to fight these progressive "attention-snatchers"
would not suspect that at least on one level the breath is the energy, the
stone is body sensation, the plant is the dreamlike, emotion-tainted content,
the animal is the monolog which starts up while still associated with the
inner pictures, the man is the ongoing words remaining when the imagery drops
off, the angel is the ideational content paradoxically still present as
specific verbal correlatives seem to dissolve away, etc.

So anyway, we have these true Theosophists watching more or less the same
inner sequence for perhaps thousands and thousands of years.  Is it too far-
fetched to imagine that the thought came to many of them, "If that is what my
own inner life is like, perhaps that is how things are macrocosmically as
well"?  No, not far-fetched to me, at least.

Which brings us directly to the subjects of Consciousness, Spirit, manas,
duality etc.  In my opinion, all of these things will just remain a jumble
unless one logs some serious meditation time.  Jerry S., it seems to me, is
right on the money when he talks about duality and "heads necessarily taking
the tails right along with it" etc.  I suppose the major place I might start
dragging my feet a little with his view may possibly be on issue of
translating the term ~manas~ as "mind." (For some reason I, rightly or
wrongly,  suspect he may be using interchangeably with ~soul~--and which,
although I suppose correct, from my point of view presents a somewhat
confusing situation since, for example, in Psychogenetic terminology, a person
with Fourth-Degree Self-realization merely means that the individual retains
enough untransformed Undifferentiated Consciousness to be able to mediate
[keep a Once-Removed Vantage upon, "ensoul"] all the possible differentiated
conditions of consciousness below kama-manas consciousness--e.g., the "semi-
Self," egoic delusions "I am my energy"; "I am my body/physical sensations";
"I am my desires and the feelings which are generated by them."  A Fifth-
Degree "soul," by contrast, can operate as the "upadhi,"--in other words,
~ensoul~-- all the former content and kama-manas delusions as well--but alas,
not the pure, dispassionate manas delusions like "I really Am all these ideas
I am presenting right now." . .).

But, jumping to what seems to me is the fundamental analogical insight of all
meditation-based-observational-analogical Theosophy:  Undifferentiated
Consciousness is the beginning/ending point of everything.  This, naturally,
is in direct opposition to most modern scientific psychology which generally
holds the idea that consciousness is something which ~appears~ at a certain
point in biological evolution.  Which view is "really" correct?  Well, I don't
know.  I do know one thing, however:  I can DO a lot more in
practical/psychological/adept/magical terms with the latter as my "working
hypothesis" rather than the former.

And, of course, it corroborates Jerry S.'s view on duality quite nicely, if
one thinks of Undifferentiated Consciousness as the "One" (Atma, Brahman,
Purusha) and then everything else (Prakriti) "emanates" from it and becomes
the potential field for all dualities.  Here, of course, it is important to
realize that ~Spirit~ is not Consciousness itself, but only a potential
"vehicle" for it (in unanalogized human terms, the Atma-Buddhi state).  Thus,
Spirit and matter can be a duality, but they are "head and tail" of the same
thing (Prakriti or "Substance"--which seems to include everything from energy
to emotions to inner pictures, to word-based thought etc.).  Indeed, the most
basic of all Theosophical ideas is probably the notion that Undifferentiated
Consciousness becomes "entrapped" by the realm of duality (all the forms of
differentiated consciousnesses) just because Purusa (Self) unfortunately
shares with Spirit (the most subtle gradient of "matter") the same super-
rarefied nature which allows for interpenetration ("contamination").

Does any of this abstract stuff really matter?  Well, to those who have no
Adept aspirations whatever, I sometimes wonder how it could really matter.
Perhaps many people want to be comforted by the it-doesn't-really-end-here
component of the "Theosophical Philosophy" or something.  To me it matters for
a different reason, of course, since I figure if that"as below so Above" was
used to create all these grand ideas in the first place, one can use "as Above
so below" to rediscover the highly useful esoteric psychological and other
realities upon which they were based.

Anyway, and all in all with the full authority of my own hard-earned view,
~Theosophist~ and ~Adept~ should probably always be used with capital letters;
furthermore, one should probably never be ashamed to admit to either title
once one honestly feels he or she is at least 1%, or even .000000001% toward
the Good. . . .

For God's sake let us leave this world, and the rather odd Theosophical
context we have all gravitated to, with something we think is to our credit
besides our own worn-out academic eyes and the ready ability to make the eyes
of others glaze over when we fall off our readers' chairs. . . .

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle