Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00534)

Eldon:
>I'd say that spiritual experiences are fundamentally different
>than psychical experiences. They're as different as the mind is
>from the feelings as manas is from kama.

Agreed. This was not my point. You and I know the
difference but you would probably be surprised by the number
of people who don't. In fact one of the main concerns of
counselors today is how to get people in touch with their
feeling and emotions--many people cannot always tell the
difference and dysfunctional people are never conscious
of their emotions at the time. But even for us there is a
marginal fuzzy line between kama-manas and buddhi-manas
where it is near to impossible to tell the difference. You
may be unaware of this but it is there and when an idea
or image comes to us from that region we usually think
of it as buddhi-manas when it is really kama-manas. I
think that CWL had this problem. It is a problem that all
intuitive people must face--some of our intuitions are
just plain wrong.

Eldon:
>With the psychical depending upon the particular power it can
>be good bad or neutral. But it is not spiritual.

Here again I have to differ. I see good and bad in the
intent or motive not in the "particular power " power energy
or force is always neutral IMHO. Even spiritual power can be
used for evil purposes--look at all the wars and bloodshed done
over the years in the name of Jesus and God.

Eldon:
>It is not black-and-white because it does not say that it's
>either a spiritual or a psychical experience. It's rather a
>*something special* that can be there or not regardless of
>the psychical.

You lost me here ???? What does "It" refer to?
I used the phrase black-and-white in reference to any
worldview that sees the spiritual/intuitive as always
right and good and the emotional/mental as always
wrong. Everything that you have said regarding this
topic tells me that your worldview is very much a black-
and-white one. You indicate over and over again that
buddhi-manas is always right and kama-manas is
always wrong and that it is very easy to tell the difference.
I have been trying to challenge this worldview because
I think that it is rather narrow--I am not trying to change
anyone here only to challenge a viewpoint that I see
as narrow and yes even Judge had this narrow worldview
or at least his writings give this me this impression.
I don't like the whole concept of right and wrong but if
we have to use it then I would agree that *most*
kama-manas is bad and *most* buddhi-manas is good.
But I believe that there are shades of grey in between
these two extremes that apparently only a very few other
theosophists have noticed. I would much prefer to place
the labels of evil and good on the amount of selfishness
involved or whether the ideas or images enhance or
bloat the ego or whether they lead to selflessness and
compassion. Kama-manas in general seeks to gratify
the ego. Buddhi-manas in general does not.

Eldon:
>The grey fills in when we place the two different views
>side-by-side in their original form. We then compare and
>contrast them and see how far it is possible to come to
>some argeement. It never happens if a view is presented but
>does not allow for such a comparison to be made.

We are obviously talking about two different things.
I was not talking about the grey between your views and my
views. I was talking about the grey that exists or doesn't exist
in any person's worldview. You Patrick and some others
seem to have a very black and white view of the world--that
everything is either good or bad etc. I am of course arriving
at this conclusion by reading only a few essays and responses
here on theos-l and really don't mean to be "picking" on anyone.
I would rather keep the whole conversation directed to ideas--
the idea of a black-and-white worldview vs one with some grey
in it. My thesis is that the first step of the Path ethics leads
to a worldview that is black and white. The second step
compassion results in the production of grey--that good and
evil are more aligned to the motive than to a specific person or
thing. In short not all psychism is evil or bad.

Jerry S.