Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00093)

Nov 10th

Dear Jerry and Frank:

Regarding terminology.  I try to use that which HPB originated.

HPB was the Messenger and the provider of Theosophical texts.
The was commissioned by the Masters of Wisdom to make
theosophical ideas available to us, as I understand it.  Why
should she be neglected or minimized?  Do we scoff at Newton or
Euclid or Einstein - or respect them for their pioneering work -
and use their propositions as a basis for our modern mathematics
?

Later writers (in Theosophy) have not used or apparently well
understood her basic propositions - in their search for novelty
and modernity.  If today there is confusion in terms, it is (as I
see it) because they fancy that they have supplanted or improved
on HPB and (presumably) the Masters.  I do not subscribe to this.
It is my view that they have accepted (or substituted) a filter
or lens between themselves and the "original."  Hence, the
differences.  It is inevitable that we do this.  What I write now
is of course colored by the lens or filter of "my" understanding.
And being aware of this I seek "safety" in being able to quote
from the "original" when asked to verify or substantiate what I
write.  The Original has a continuing value to me.

Consequently when there are language differences if one goes to
what HPB wrote on behalf of the Masters, and if we assume (or
have proved to one's self) that They know what they are talking
about, then the matter gets straightened out.  At least that is
the way I see it.  We have to compare oranges with oranges.

You (I, all of us) are at liberty to disagree and to study
anything you/we please or employ any "bridge" or "filter" one
chooses when thinking of, or trying to speak of Theosophical
themes, but if you/we do not start from where THEOSOPHY starts,
then there will be confusion and a great exchange of words.  And
to me, that is quite wasteful.

It is also quite true that HPB had to develop and use a special
vocabulary to express the propositions and doctrines of
Theosophy.  She constantly complained about the inaccuracies and
inflexibility of English - which had to be used.

To presume that HPB did not know what she was talking and writing
of, is (in my view) presumptuous - a strong word, true -- but one
which shows pride in one's own scholarship and learning, and, an
apparently unyielding desire to supplant the original teachings.

And this is what Johnson shows, as well as great ingeniousness in
inventing things that are non-existent and which his short visit
in India did not let him discover and verify.  He writes books to
sell them and constantly refers back to his own theories - which
is a closed circle.

If we are going to compare what Theosophy has to say on various
subjects and what we think we know, then there is going to be
endless disputation.

If we are going to try to learn together about Theosophical
Psychology, then we might as well be sure that we start from the
same set of ABC's.  If each of us has arrived at some "bridge"
that relates Theosophical psychology to modern psychology then
such a "bridge" might be valuable to others if explained.  As far
as I can see most modern psychologists do not soar beyond the
"personality" what in Theosophy we call the intellectual quality
of Kama-Manas (the lower manas).  Until such time as the moral
and ethical evolution of Mankind - as consciousness - is taken
into account, and the idea that we are dealing with an IMMORTAL
and an ETERNAL MONADIC CONSCIOUSNESS in every human being, we
will not make with any ease the bridge to an understanding of the
Higher Manas and Buddhi - but they will elude us as they cannot
be dissected using the tools solely of Kama-Manas.  Modern
psychology starts from "below" - the animal intelligence and
level of consciousness, Theosophical psychology starts with the
IMMORTAL MONAD and traces its descent into matter and finally to
its reflection as Kama-Manas in humanity.  I find that SD II 167
is a key to grasping this concept.

"Spiritual Soul" is a term HPB uses several times in THE KEY TO
THEOSOPHY and elsewhere to designate Buddhi "the centrifugal
force in man." [Key 190]

While "Kama" is intensely personal and selfish, Buddhi is
universal and unselfish - from it arise all the virtues and their
universal applications, which (to my mind) have to be considered
as essential to an understanding of human consciousness and
developing intelligence as, through the process of Karma and
Reincarnation he gradually awakens to the vistas of the spiritual
Universe and makes his self-conscious "return" to it.

You will excuse me, I hope, if I sound sharp on this subject of
the divergence of teachings.

Best wishes,

Dallas

=============================