Theos-Talk Archives (June 1997 Message tt00081)

At 09:17 AM 25/06/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi There,
>
>Seems to me the answer is to list a term and then attribute the varied
>explanations to each respective source. In this way the term would be
>comprehensively covered in one place (gee, sounds like a reference tool to
>me) and students of Theosophy could chew on the postulations without having
>one view rammed into thier consciousness.
>
>EG:
>Astral Body --- generic definition if noone is debating what's what
>
>according to:
>
>HPB
>
>CWL
>
>AB
>
>Krishnamurti
>
>The Masters
>
>Who knows who?
>
>Just a thought form made manifest.
>
>
>LandSpeed Louise
>----------
>From: "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval@nwc.net>
>To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
>Subject: Re:Theosophical Encyclopaedia
>Date: Wednesday, June 25, 1997 3:37 AM
>
>June 24th 1997
>
>Note to Lmhem111@aol.com	Re  T. encyclopedia - Harris, Australia
>
>
>About a year ago I learned of this effort and contacted Mr. S.P.Harris.
>I found that his concept of an encyclopedia included anything and
>everything which had been clasified as "theosophical" from no matter
>which sources.  I inquired further and determined that the result would
>be a confusion of explanations and definition of terms.
>
>Some items would contain HPB's definitions, and added tothat with equal
>strength, might be Leadbeater, or Annie Besant explanations.
>
>I had offered my serveices and when I found out that this was to be what
>in my esteem was a non-discriminatory hodge-podge I withdrew.
>
>Pesonally, I value the explanations and work of the pineers:  HPB, WQJ,
>HSO, Damodar, and such others as are found to IN FULL ACCORD with the
>recorded "Message" of Theosopy.
>
>One might think that I am excluding developments which add value because
>of "increents and developments" derived from students of HPB's
>Theosophy.  Any statement claiming to be "theosophical" would, in my
>esteem have to cohere with all the rest and would not be at variance
>with the original or key expressions.  Each student has to determine for
>himself what is exact and what is "different."
>
>Dallas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Lmhem111@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Is the Theosophical Encyclopaedia a joint venture of all theosophical
>groups,
>> i.e., The Theosophical Society (Adyar), the United Lodge of Theosophists
>and
>> The Theosophical Society (Pasadena) or is it under the sponsorship of
>just
>> one organization? Just curious. Definitions may vary according to what
>> "school" of the theosophy one belongs. For instance, the term SOLOR LOGOS
>may
>> have no meaning for a ULT Theosophist. The ASTRAL BODY may mean the
>exactly
>> that for a so-called "neo-theosophist", that is, a vehicle of
>consciousness
>> for the Astral Plane. However, for a Blavatskyite the terms 'astral body"
>> refers the Etheric Double. Geoffrey Farthing, for instance, is in the
>> Blavatsky school and his classifications generally coincide with that of
>W.Q.
>> Judge.
>>
>> LMHIII
>>
>

Dear LandSped Louise,

You are so right!!!  That is exactly what any reference work attempts to do;
give all aspects an airing!

Bless you!

Philip