Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00027)

In a message dated 12/02/01 9:39:11 AM, gschueler@earthlink.net writes:

>Dallas, I am not sure what you mean here. I view the principles as general
>principles, not as things. buddhi is not primordial matter - which is 
prakriti
>- but rather the general principle of form. Here is how I see it:
>
>atma - the principle of subjectivity
>buddhi - the principle of objectivity
>manas - the principle of conscious mentation
>kama - the principle of desire
>
>Thus I have a mind and you have a mind, both of which are individual 
manifestations
>of the general principle of manas. etc etc When you or I die, our minds
>will die too, but manas will keep on going. Principles are not born, nor
>do they die. But over time, they do evolve and change.
>
>Is this different from your own view?

Jerry, I don't know about Dallas... But, in my view "principles" seems to be 
a meaningless word in this context. In actuality, what you call "principles 
are differentiated fields of primal energy or "substance" that are "coadunate 
but not consubstantial." Therefore, they must be "things" -- since energy is 
matter, matter is energy, and cannot be considered as being separate. i.e.; 
If, as you say, "prakriti is primal matter," then all those so called 
"principles" you identify from buddhi to kama, are differentiation's of 
prakriti, and therefore material things in themselves. Atma, on the other 
hand, being a reflection of primal consciousness or perusha, is therefore, 
separate from the others and immaterial -- thus, not a "thing" in itself. 

LHM