Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00441)

Daniel Caldwell wrote:


> >Jerry, it would be helpful if you gave us some examples of
> >words HPB used which you consider "quaint and out of date."
> >And why do you consider them "quaint" and "out of date"?

Jerry Schueler replied:

>How about Linga-Sarira? Dhyani-Chohans? Manas (whats wrong
> with mind?)? All of these kind of "foreign" words are found today
> in Theosophy and nowhere else outside of their original countries
> perhaps. And I doubt if anyone today actually speaks, writes, or
> reads Sanskrit except scholars. They are rather like the technical
> terms used in science, good for building mystic and elitism, but
> largely unnecessary. This is, of course, just a personal opinion
> and I fully realize that most Theosophists enjoy having this kind of
> mystical/magical language.


Daniel Caldwell comments:

Jerry, as far as I can see, you do *not* show why these words used
by HPB are either quaint or out-of-date.  Instead you write that
most Theosophists "enjoy" having this kind of mystical/magical
language which builds "elitism".  I guess this is *one* interpretation
that you can put on it.  Would you also include HPB and her
Teachers in this "elitism"? Certainly if we can use regular
English words to explain Theosophy then let's do it.  Nevertheless,
every science, philosophy, etc. has its own jargon, so why not
Theosophy?  Do you ever use the words yoga, or karma or Mahatma?
Maybe 100 years ago these three words were part of this "elitism"
you complain about, but now are part of the English language.
Does it hurt the inquirer of Theosophy to learn *some* Sanskrit
terms?  I find that learning these terms expands one's mental
horizons, etc.  One can gain a greater understanding of
words and their root meanings.  One need not be a stuffy
old scholar to appreciate all of this.  Much more could be
said on this subject, but I will stop at this point.


Daniel Caldwell wrote:

> >Concerning the term "devachan", you say that this word
> >doesn't exist?  What do you mean?  In THE RELIGIONS
> >OF TIBET by Giuseppe Tucci, p. 291, the glossary gives
> >a word:  bDe ba can   It is Tibetan and the
> >pronunciation of the word is given as:  Dewachen
> >It is defined as the "name of a heavenly world" and is
> >the equivalent of the Sanskrit word:  Sukhavati (name
> >of a paradise).
> >
> >"Dewachen" is the phonetic spelling.  A careful reader
> >of THE MAHATMA LETTERS will notice that the writers
> >usually give the phonetic spelling of Sanskrit and
> >Tibetan terms.


Jerry Schueler replied:

> I have great respect for Tucci. But outside of a few scholarly
> works (and for all I know they could be using HPB as a source)
> I have never come across this word in any of the many books
> that I have read. Furthermore, its use as a "name of a
> heavenly world" is NOT how it is used in Theosophy as you
> well know. In fact, de Purucker defines it as a non-localized
> mental after-death state rather in the same sense of the
> Tibetan Bardo.


But in your original posting you claimed HPB made up the
word "devachan".  But now you admit that you have come
across this term "devachan" in a "few scholarly works".

And when you write:  "and for all I know they could be using HPB as a
source";
isn't it also true that FOR ALL YOU KNOW they could be using a source
other than HPB?  BTW, please tell us what those "few scholarly works"
are in which Devachan is mentioned.

And when you write:

>Furthermore, its use as a "name of a
> heavenly world" is NOT how it is used in Theosophy as you
> well know. In fact, de Purucker defines it as a non-localized
> mental after-death state rather in the same sense of the
> Tibetan Bardo.

What point are you trying to convey here?  Tucci is giving the
definition for Devachan as given in Tibetan. And he gives
Sukhavati as the Sanskrit equivalent.  Pulling from my
shelf THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF EASTERN PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION,
under Sukhavati (which means "the blissful") the entry
says:  "Though these descriptions [of Sukhaviti] are taken by folk
religion to refer to a localizable place, in a profounder
sense they are characterizations of a state of mind."
This is also what HPB says in THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, p. 312:
"The *popular* notion [of Sukhavati] . . . is an exaggerated
and mistaken notion of Devachan."  Just as the popular notion
of Heaven in the Christian religion could be characterized
as "an exagerated and mistaken notion of Devachan."  Actually
the definition of devachan as "the name of a heavenly world" is
a pretty good *general* Theosophical definition. Of course, HPB
and the Mahatmas indicate that this "heavenly world" is actually a
*subjective* state created by the discarnate "Ego" in the bardo.