Theos-Talk Archives (April 1999 Message tt00153)

In a message dated 4/14/99 4:14:46 PM, schuelergerald@optec-hq.optec.army.mil 
writes:

(Dallas)
>>>How, then, can BUDDHI be "imagination," as that is a faculty of the
>mind principle, as a result of its union with Kama ?
>"Imagination" can be very selfish, whereas the essential
>qualification of BUDDHI is its UNIVERSALITY  and TOTAL
>UNSELFISHNESS,  It represents, as I understand it, the excellence of
>creativity only.>>
>
(Jerry)
>Dallas, I did not say that Buddhi is imagination. I said that
>imagination, our ability to imagine or create images, is
>in buddhi. And intuition or insight is there also. Manas is 
>mostly the thinking process.  
>
>I often like to think of this in the Jungian sense of
>thinking (manas), feeling (kama), intution (buddhi),
>and sensation (lower principles acting together). 

>Our human ability to imagine and to form images
>is neither selfish or unselfish per se.

Excuse me for butting in... But in spite of the Jungian conceptions, from the 
theosophical standpoint, "imagination" is not directly related to buddhi.  
It's in the higher manas where the "images" appear that we think about 
(rationally)--using the lower manas linked to our "zero-point" awareness 
center (which is non-locally tied in to all fields).  It's "Intuition," which 
is the source of "ideation," that is in buddhi... But, ideas are 
abstractions, and it takes higher manas--an adjoining, lower level field of 
vibrational patterns (on the other side of the zero-point between them)--to 
recreate the mental images of the ideations in buddhi for our contemplation 
and ratiocination.

Since buddhi is above manas (on the spiritual vibrational frequency field 
level) and manas is between buddhi and kama (on the mental frequency level) 
where selfishness is functional--Dallas is correct in saying buddhi is not 
linked to selfishness.  How can buddhi, which is the vehicle of atma have any 
concern with the motivations of the lower nature?  

I suggest you (and other interested students) check out my "chakrafield" 
diagram at  
http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html, 
and (using your imagination along with your intuition and reason) get a rough 
idea of how these fields originate and evolve (within and adjacent to each 
other) "in coadunition, but not in consubstantiality"--as well as an 
understanding of how they are linked to each other through their common 
non-local, static zero-point centers (where awareness resides both 
individually and collectively).  Note also that their origin, formations, and 
energetic characteristics, fully conform to and are consistent with all the 
laws of cycles or karma, as well as all the fundamental principles.  

It's good to remember that throughout all of nature, information is carried 
and transformed solely by the wave patterns of the energy flows that surround 
and permeate each interpenetrating or coadunate field.  A fairly good 
analogy, in the case of visual imagery, is the simple process of 
analog-digital hybrid transformational processes between the TV camera and 
the receiver--with the "object," external at the input end, and the 
"subject," internal at the output end.  A similar process occurs (although in 
this case, holographic) between the "object of perception" and the 
"perceiver" -- operating through the material (eye-brain) fields and the 
consciousness (astral-mental) fields.  Perhaps Jung, who certainly understood 
the laws of "synchronism" and "archetypes," also knew all about the governing 
theory of cycles.  (I'm sure he, like Einstein, read the Secret Doctrine.:-) 
Therefore, there's nothing like a good foundation in the 2nd fundamental 
principle to "clearly understand the workings of "karma" (in its 
action-reaction and imaging aspects, as well as how it contributes to 
reincarnation--although that is far nore difficult to comprehend its 
mechanisms).  

Too bad academic science doesn't teach it's students how to think from this 
holistic and fundamental point of view--forcing them to base their ideas and 
conceptions on the theories of their predecessors.  If such methods were 
taught in our academies, there would be no need to quote "authoritative" 
references, all new theories would be automatically compatible with older 
ones, and scientists could depend solely on their own derivations of 
fundamental law for their abstract mathematical proofs--as Einstein and other 
intuitive Prometheans of science have demonstrated is possible...   

LHM

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.