Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00111)

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

Yeah, you got it right. She "originated" a lot of it.


>HPB was the Messenger and the provider of Theosophical texts.

With a cap T, yes.


>The was commissioned by the Masters of Wisdom to make
>theosophical ideas available to us, as I understand it.

Why "commissioned?"  What was her commission? Money? Merit?


 >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
>?
>

Your inference that I am neglecting or minimizing HPB is misguided,
Dallas. When she is wrong (not very often) or uses poor terminology
(a lot) I see no reason to continue it when it is not necessary.


>Later writers (in Theosophy) have not used or apparently well
>understood her basic propositions - in their search for novelty
>and modernity.

Excuse me, but this is bullshit, albeit a subjective opinion and one
that you are welcome to. Please don't try to pull this kind of crap
on me, Dallas. I know very well what HPB's basic propositions are,
and so do most "later writers."

The idea of novelty is psychologically sound, my friend. As theosophists
(small t intended) we need to go beyond mere words into the spirit
that is behind them. To do this, novelty is almost always a necessity
(much like the old Zen master who strikes the student with a stick
and awakens his insight thereby).


>  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.

Well, this is, of course, your choice. But it is the terminology that
causes so many many newbies to quit and most others to study
ad infinim with no real insight into what the old (and often wrong)
terminology means. Why do you think HPB called the Globes A,
B, and so on? I have to suspect that its because she had no real
names to use (the idea of doing this on purpose to maintain
some kind of esoteric secrecy is beyond my belief system).


>It is my view that they have accepted (or substituted) a filter
>or lens between themselves and the "original."  Hence, the
>differences.

Or perhaps they understood quite well what she wrote, and
decided that it could be put into better words? The problem,
of course, is one of interpretation, and I have been telling
you this for a long time now.


 >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.
>

Until we experience some degree of Gnosis or samadhi, our
"understanding" will always be limited to our interpretation of
somebody else's words. Your "safety" is only as good as
your interpretation, and as I have tried to show many times,
we often have a very different interpretation of what she wrote
(which is OK, as long as we all realize that fact).


>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.
>

No, it doesn't get "straightened out" at all, because "what they
are talking about" is subject to interpretation, as all exoteric
knowledge is. How do we compare oranges when you see
an orange that is ripe while I see one that is still green, so to
speak?


>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.
>

Well, like a broken record there you go again. Now please try
to listen to what I am saying just this one time. Please. I am not
talking about "filters" or "bridges" or whatever, but about HPB
and her original writings. You quote her original words to use
to show me exactly what you mean on some topic, and I in turn
agree completely with HPB's words but still don't agree with you.
Why is that, Dallas? Could it possibly be that we both interpret
her differently? Will accepting this confuse you and cause you
anguish? Is that why you don't want to accept the fact that even
HPB and the MLs can be interpreted different ways? I suppose
that in accepting this, one also has to accept that going back
to the "source" is not without its own problems, and so you
would have to rethink your whole approach on this list. Please
think about this, though. If I am wrong, I will kindly back off.


>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.
>

Absolutely. I have said this many times to justify WHY she wrote
as she did. She had no choice. We do.


>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.
>

I know of no Theosophist who ever said that HPB did not know what
she was talking about.  Even ol' Crowley, who hated Theosophy
(I believe he called it Toshosophy) wrote that HPB was an Adept.


>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.
>

Well, here again is your own strong opinion, alias interpretation.
I have read Johnson's books and like them. He shows HPB and
the Masters to have been human beings. Golly! And no, he doesn't
"write book to sell them" because he paid to self-publish his
first book out of the desire to get his message out (I don't think
he even sold enough to pay for his expenses). I have written
several books on magic, and you would be shocked at how little
I get financially for my efforts (less that 50 cents a book, and none
are best sellers).


>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.
>

There already is. And your quoting the "sources" doesn't
seem to be helping much.


>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.

HPB and the MLs usually serve as a foundation or jump-off point
for all of us, yes.  And in that material is some very nice descriptions
of a bunch of Globes and cosmic solar-system planes and subplanes
all-together which I have called the Gupta-Vidya Model simply
because HPB never bothered to put a name to it (hell, she couldn't
even put names to the globes). Lets call it the GV Model, for short.
Now, IMHO, this model forms the very backbone of the modern
Theosophical movement. It furnishes us with a Theosophical
viewpoint of the old Tree of LIfe, showing that instead of a tree-like
arrangment, we have a circular one. Now this is extremely important,
because the Theosophical movement also talks a lot about cycles.
Her model clearly shows life-in-manifestation flowing around a
ring of Globes, which she calls a planetary chain of Globes (it flows
widdershins, but this is another story). Simple huh? And if this is
not enough, G de P comes along and expounds on this model in
more than a few books, while also never giving it any name, but
lots more definition. The problem? My own interpetation of this
model is altogether different from that of Eldon and Jerry H-E,
both of whom I have high regard. When this difference first became
apparent (and thank the gods & goddesses for the Internet where
we were able to do this) I was absolutely astounded. I was very
surprised. Then I became a bit depressed, as the reality of our
interpreting HPB came home to me. Not an easy lesson for me,
and one that you can't seem to digest. Hard but true fact: we
Theosophists can't even agree on the GV Model, which forms
the background or psychic structure of the whole Theosophical
"teaching" or "doctrine" or whatever you want to call it. Without
an agreement on the GV Model, I think that the chances for
any kind of Theosophical (cap T intended) unity is nil.


> 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.

Please see my article in the latest Fohat journal.



> 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).

Totally wrong and out of date here. Please read some of the recent
literature on transpersonal psychology.


>Until such time as the moral
>and ethical evolution of Mankind - as consciousness - is taken
>into account, ;;;

Why do you always have to insist that ethics and morals have
anything at all with this? Your ethics and morals are all fine
and good, and yes they have their place and are important
and so on, but "the ethical evolution of Mankind" exists only
in your own mind (praise be to all the deities).

To get a glimpse of why I harp on keeping ethics and morals in
their proper place, try to keep the GV Model in mind. It describes
a long series of upward and downward cycles with lots and lots
of minor excursions in between. As we ride these waves, ethics
and morals change drastically. Ethical and moral development is
non-linear, Dallas. I am sorry if you can't accept this, but I believe
that it is true even without your acceptance.


> 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.
>

The "immortal monad" is, I assume, the "divine monad" which does
not descend into anything. Only its "ray" or expression does this. This
may seem to you to be a find point, but the distinction forms the basis
of my own mystical worldview and is very important to me.

According to G de P, whom I have high regard, this monadic expression
reflects itself in a lot more than just kama-manas.


>"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]
>

Yes, I know, and it is a very piss poor term to use. Buddhi is the vehicle
of atma, and why should a body or vehicle be called a soul? Maybe
she was just being poetic. Maybe she couldn't think of a better word
to use at the time. Anyway, its a poor name by any standard because
it is very misleading. I would rather say atma-buddhi, the spiritual
monad or "ray" is the spiritual soul, but I try to avoid the term "soul"
whenever possible because everyone nowdays has their own
definition of it, and such usage just encourages mis-interpretations.
Buddhi is indeed a centrifugal force, pulling consciousness downward
into matter.


>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 ...

You seem here to insinuate that kama is always "bad" and that
buddhi is always "good."  This is not so, and depends on where
one is and where one is going on the GV Model.

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


Please excuse me if I sound the same.

Jerry S.