Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00118)

[Jerry replies to Dallas:]

>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.


Very interesting statement. Is this a serious discussion or just a joke I've
not understood? Why is the soul not a soul? Why is a vehicle not a soul? One
can invent new labels but the teachings given down through all the ages up
to HPB and her followers is the same. And as Annie Besant stated so well in
a Lucifer article, that teachings HPB gave are called Theosophy, what she
not taught or what is in contradiction to her teachings cannot be called
Theosophy. To alter the terms is not only unfair to the newbees but is also
Theosophy misunderstood. One can believe what he/she likes and one can take
out portions from Theosophy and intermix it with his/her own knowledge, but
then he/she should give theis new teachings a new name. Steiner did it. One
of the few good ideas he had.

>>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.


Again I must help Dallas. Jerry, why do you always put under something?
Dallas never wrote or meant that Kama is bad, that is your own
misconception. All what he wrote was that kama is personal and selfish, and
that is exactly correct.
Before one is inventing new (better?) models one is best advised to try to
understand first the old.

More fairness, please!

Frank