Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00127)

Dear Dallas,

Thankyou.  You have written very clearly.  It all jives with my
understanding.  Our words vary but the thought seems the same.  It is
soooooo important to define terms and HPB is the leader in defining such
terms in my opinion.  I am trying to understand her definitions and then
find similar notions in the language and culture of scientists in my field
particularly those from working family backgrounds and mediocre public
school educations like myself.  So far I like:

1. All possible thought
2. Latent thought
3. Actual thought

from the theosophical literature, corresponding to

1. Atma
2. Buddhi
3. Higher Manas

I'm considering the possibility that another accurate correspondance is


1. Altruistic Motive(the unity of all possible thought, the Thinker)
2. Intuitive thought
3. Science

or even

1. Altruisim(Occultism)(see the stories by O'Henry)
2. Beauty, the realm of the Pure Mathematician, the Platonic realm or state
of consciousness
3. Science


Thankyou so much for your response.  I am beginning to feel right at home!

Gene



-----Original Message-----
From: dalval <dalval@nwc.net>
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 7:09 AM
Subject: RE: Theos-World MONADS IN EVOLUTION


>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.
>


-- 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.