Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00126)

May 15 2000

Dear Gene:

The statements I make are metaphysical.

Once that those are understood the process of "hands-on"
formation begins and tools of whatever material are devised for
the "plane of manifestation" on which they are needed.

It is plain (to me) for instance, that the Mind operates on a
plane different from the "hands."  The Mind then guides the
(physical) hands through the (physical) brain impulses, and so
on.

But there is always in "us" That which is the master and operator
of the Mind.  For the Mind is also a "tool."  It is very
powerful, but it is "WE" who use and guide it.  The "WE" is (for
me) the Monad or Atma-Buddhi-Manas in manifestation and presently
using the personality that I am, including the lower mind which
then guides my body in its daily thinking and work.

It should be also recognized that our whims, impulses and desires
are a powerful component of our personality and at times they
tend to oppose the clear vision and action of the Higher Mind.
We have all witnessed this interior conflict as a matter of
practical psychology.  A discussion of their origin and power is
another (separate) chapter in the study of Theosophy.

HPB gives us the definitions of ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS in the KEY TO
THEOSOPHY.  Her definitions do not entirely suit/agree with those
that you offer (if I understand them correctly).

Atma = Ideal everything.  This is IMMORTAL and ETERNAL.
Imperishable.  A "ray" of the Universal One Spirit is said to be
fixed at the core of every Monad.  A "Man/mind" is Monad which
has reached the stage of independent thinking.

Buddhi = imperishable record of all that has been done in the
past.  This is a continuous record in Akasa of thoughts,
feelings, and acts of each Monad.  Taken as a whole these records
form the imprint of THEOSOPHY (as history and doctrine) down the
ages.  It is imperishable and ineradicable.  Like our Karma it
forever surrounds us.

The MONADS are everywhere in the manifested Universe   (some call
them the "life-atoms.")  They appear when manifestation dawns and
are units of ATMA/BUDDHI.  Buddhi being  PRIMORDIAL MATTER
(Mulaprakriti).

Manas = Mind with all its many aspects.  Primarily there are two:

1.  Buddhi-Manas or the ideal mind that perceives the truths and
facts that are universal, impersonal and ideal.  The applications
of the superior mind is, as you say:  "Altruism -- or Occultism."

2.  Kama-Manas or the personal mind that is associated most
closely with our present embodiment in a physical body and
nature.  Of this Patanjali says:  "The modifications of the mind
are... Correct cognition, Misconception, Fancy, Sleep, and
Memory." [ Pat. I - 6, 7.  p. 4 ]  As I understand it, we are
expected to master these and learn how they operate so we can
control them.

This is what I apply when trying to understand what is written
and in answering.

I hope that this may be of use.

Dallas


D. T. B.


============================================

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com
[mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Eugene
Carpenter
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 1:16 PM
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World MONADS IN EVOLUTION

Hi,

Thanks, but I don't believe that.  Atma-buddhi-Manas is the
transpersonal
triad

1.  The Creative Will of Humanity, the first cause of the
Altruistic Mind
2.  The Buddhic intuitive Mind
3.  The Abstract Mind

The deductive or the concrete mind is indeed the tool of the
higher states
of Atma-Buddhi-Manas and a tool doesn't build a house.  But
Atma-Buddhi-Manas ain't gonna build no house without a tool.

I've experienced it.  One receives the Creative Will of
Humanity(Atma)(all
possible thought) through the buddhic intuition(latent thought)
and one gets
abstract thought(actual thought.  This is then down-loaded into
the personal
concrete mind and must confront the personal experience and
vice-versa.
Then the concrete mind experience, common sense, must search for
experience
which substantiates the new abstract thoughts(hypotheses) or
devise the
proper experiments to substantiate the buddhi-manasic notions.
The concrete
mind is the slayer of the real, but what does that phrase mean?
Gee.  HPB
wrote that the concrete mind is symbolized by John the Baptist in
the
symbolic language of the New Testament.  Further she wrote that
this
concrete mind, this personal analytical mind, is the bridge, the
antaskarana, from the transpersonal states of consciousness to
the personal
states of consciousness.  The concrete mind is not the cause of
abstract-intuitive-thought but is the effect of such thought.
Science is
important.  Science is knowledge of matter.  Wisdom is knowledge
of spirit.
To have wise science is the goal is it not?  Decartes said that
the way to
truth is through intuition AND deduction.  He did not write that
the way to
truth is through deduction.  The analysis and synthesis by the
concrete mind
is the personal basis that substantiates theosophical thought!
It might not
be the way but is the means to truely and deeply understand.
Isn't personal
understanding essential?  Isn't personal understanding and common
sense
really the bottom line.  Theosophy lifts one into understanding
the obvious.
  "Occultism is Altruism pure and simple." HPB. And.  How are we
going to
put our lives on the line for the one life of our humanity?

Hooray for deduction!

Love,
Gene


-----Original Message-----
From: ASANAT@aol.com <ASANAT@aol.com>
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Cc: ARASantaFE@aol.com <ARASantaFE@aol.com>; Elliot Ryan
<nppress@vais.net>;
csanabri@skadden.com <csanabri@skadden.com>; Armando Verea
<averea@juno.com>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World MONADS IN EVOLUTION


>In a message dated 4/27/00 2:15:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>ecarpent@co.la.ca.us writes:
>
><< Hi,
>
>I've enjoyed reading ya'll stuff on theos-talk, and I'm on the
lookout for
>anything concerning finding truth through deduction and
buddhic-intuition
>with deduction beginning and ending with the self-evident truth.
>
>Love,
>Eugene  >>
>
>Dear Eugene,
>
>If you are looking to "find truth through deduction," especially
"beginning
>and ending with the self-evident truth," & in the words of the
immortal
John
>Lennon (as informed by Yoko):  "Rots-a-rock!"
>
>Deduction is a tool of the analytical mind.  The analytical mind
is
wonderful
>for doing anything having to do with things mechanical (building
bridges,
>composing computer programs, finding one's way in traffic).  But
it is
>ludicrously out of its depth, when it comes to things that
matter to humans
>(such as ethics, religious experience, aesthetic experience, &
such).
Since
>theosophy is about things that matter to humans, deduction has
no ESSENTIAL
>place in it.
>
>Yes, deduction has a place in our understanding of theosophy.
The
DEDUCTIVE
>ARGUMENT used in the previous paragraph is an example of how we
use
deduction
>all the time, whenever we speak or think.  So whenever we SPEAK
or THINK of
>things theosophical, we'll be FORCED to use deduction.  But such
speaking
is
>truly THEOSOPHICAL if, and only if, it comes from THEOSOPHICAL
STATES OF
>AWARENESS.  In such states, the analytical mind (including its
deductive
>elements) has absolutely NO PLACE.  "The Mind is the Great
Slayer of the
>Real.  Let the Disciple Slay the Slayer."  Slaying is a strong
word.  It
>means:  There must be ABSOLUTELY NO ANALYTICAL MIND, in any
genuine inquiry
>into THAT WHICH IS.
>It is from DEDUCTION that any and all SYSTEMS come from.  But
systems
ALWAYS
>imply the preservation and promotion of THE ME.  And so long as
there is
>self-centeredness, there cannot be any inquiry worthy of the
name into THAT
>WHICH IS.
>A system always preserves & promotes the me, since a KNOWER is
required in
>order to have a system of any sort.  Such a knower is, almost by
definition,
>separate from the thing it knows.  So a system IMPLIES that
there MUST BE a
>fragmentation between an observer, and that which she observes.
But such
an
>observer is ALWAYS the result of the way she thinks.  That is,
the
observer,
>the analyzer, is always a result of never-questioned
expectations, based on
>conditioning.
>So DEDUCTION, far from getting anyone any closer to
understanding anything
>about THAT WHICH IS, is an excellent tool for making it
IMPOSSIBLE to even
>look at THAT WHICH IS, let alone for getting close to it.
>A totally different human component must be relied on, in this
process of
>theosophical investigation.  According to the ancient wisdom,
such sources
>are to be found in insight-compassion, in whose states of
awareness, as
such,
>there is no analysis -- & so no deductions.
>This is intended only as part of an on-going dialogue on "the
Great
>Conversation."  It is not meant as a "final word" on this
subject, by any
>means.  What do ya'll think?
>With affection,
>Aryel
>
>-- 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.
>


-- 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.


-- 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.