Theos-Talk Archives (April 1999 Message tt00091)

In a message dated 4/8/99 3:30:53 PM, Jerry wrote:

<<Manas is a Sanskrit word that means mind. Period. Mind is not consciousness
itself.>>

Some information from Buddhist tradition may shed light on this endless 
debate, but please know that I don't think Buddhist views necessarily 
supercede Theosophical ones.  They do tend to explain WHY Theosophy uses the 
terms that it does, and what they mean in the source material.

In even the earliest Buddhism, before the Mahayana was publicly developed, it 
was taught that there were six sense-organs which produced six kinds of 
"consciousness."  Those six sense-organs (ayatanas) were eye, ear, nose, 
tongue, skin, and Manas.  Each produced in its turn appropriate 
consciousnesses (vijnana) namely sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and 
ideas.  All six consciousnesses were considered extremely momentary, 
extremely unreliable.  The Buddha is on record as saying over and over again 
"These are not mine.  These are not a self.  There is no 'I' here."  Clearly, 
Manas was not highly regarded, being merely a (non-phusical) sense organ.

Later Buddhism, Yogacara (or "Yoga-practicing") school, proposed that behind 
the mind-organ was another kind of consciousness, called Klishta Manas or 
"Impure Mind."  It was this consciousness, also related to the empirical 
world, which took in the sense-data of the six lower organs (including 
Mano-vijnana) and produced the (false) idea of the Ego experiencing 
everything.  Beyond this, the Yogacarins posited an Eighth kind of 
consciousness called Alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness).  It is a 
long-lasting consciousness, giving continuing from life to life (which none 
of the other vijnanas do) and this Eighth consiousness holds the seeds (bija) 
of karma, which ripen appropriately.

We will notice that HPB uses the term Alaya quite frequently in the S.D., and 
it is quite a different term than Manas.  It would probably be a big mistake 
to confuse temporary sense-experience (Mano-vijnana, even Klishta Manas) with 
an all-encompassing consciousness like Alaya-vijnana.  They are certainly 
different kinds of consciousness, and not restricted to Manas in scope.  If 
HPB uses these terms *at all* like the Buddhists from whom she has borrowed 
them, we must get an inkling of the great difference between sensual and 
ideal, the ephemeral and the storehouse, the ego-encrusted and the 
Transcendent.

Rich

-- 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.