Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00060)

>Jerry S. States that "Because manas is the human mind, and it is re-born
>each time. The causal body, the atma-buddhi, is the Reincarnating Ego which
>puts forth a new "ray" or manas at the beginning of each re-incarnation."
>The only difference here is that Jerry removes "Manas" from the Causal,
>making it Atma-Buddhi.  I disagree with this ...

	All of this arguing demonstrates the problem that exists
with Theosophical terminology.  The model that I use myself
is given below.  I do not use Sanskrit, except for the principles,
and there is one principle on each plane.  My terminology has
the advantage of being in plain English, easy to remember, and
blending the HPB/G de P and CWL/AB models together, while
not entirely agreeing with either.  My model includes the Abyss
which I believe HPB deliberately left out.  It allows for the 12
Globes that G de P discusses, and relates them to the planes
and principles and bodies, which I do not believe has ever
been done before.  Anyway, it serves me well, both for study,
meditation, and experiential practices.  It is:

1 Auric Egg (para-atma)    Divine Monad       Divine Plane
2 Spiritual (atma)                Spiritual Body      Spiritual Plane
3 ----------------------------------ABYSS-----------------------------
4 Causal (buddhi)              Causal Body        Causal Plane
5 Mental (manas)               Mental Body          Mental Plane
6 Astral  (kama)                  Astral Body           Astral Plane
7 Physical                            Physical Body      Physical Plane

Not every theosophist uses the same model that I do, and this
always provokes "I don't see it that way" and so on.  Lets try
not to get too tangled up into verbage and names.  When the
human mind looks upward into spirit, it becomes buddhi-manas
and when it looks downward into matter it becomes kama-
manas, but manas is manas is manas.  The way Theosophists
throw these names around, it is terribly confusing for any
reader to see what is meant, even long-term ones like myself.
HPB had a hard time putting this stuff into words, and she
changed directions and revised names as she went along
trying to refine the ideas.  The result is a lot of confusion.
	As shown above, I place manas on the third plane
upward.  This is where devachan takes place, and it is where
the human mind is located and confined to.  The Reincarnating
Ego, by whatever name we want to give it, is located on the
fourth plane upward, the Causal.  So, by my model, we get
a new manas with each incarnation.  Now everyone is perfectly
free to make this stuff as difficult and incomprehensible as
they want to.  But I prefer to keep things easy, straightforward,
and plain as possible.
	I am NOT suggesting that anyone adopt my model,
but am giving it out just so everyone can see exactly where I
am coming from with my terminology.  Without a 7-plane model
of some kind as a framework, none of this stuff makes any
sense at all.  With a 7-plane model, it all makes perfect sense
and forms a very nice structure that mentally underpins lots of
experiential data.

>. Further, Manas is NOT the human mind, but Mind in total.
>The human mind is limited by the expression (or vehicle of expression) by
>which it is observed (in Kama.)  This makes the human mind "Kama-Manas", not
>"Manas."
	I have a real problem with this idea, James.  According to
what you say above, the human mind is kama-manas.  If so, then
what is buddhi-manas?  Divine mind?   I don't think so.  Inspiration
and spiritual insight all come to us human beings via buddhi-manas,
which most people, myself included, would like to see within the
unbrella of the human mind.  I don't transcend my human mind when
I activate buddhi-manas, but I do transcend it when I activate atma-
buddhi.   But perhaps I am misunderstanding you?  What is "Mind
in total?"  Do we human beings have access to a "higher mind"
of some sort?
	Not only is the terminology "loose as a goose" but
the way different folks use it sometimes makes it even worse.
I am not trying to pick on James here, because we all have
the same problem--the terminology is confusing and doesn't
always make sense when we use it to convey an idea.  To
get around this, I made up my own terminology that works
well for me.  But when someone says "HPB says" then my
response is always "when and where" because she says
different things at different times.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI