theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Confusion in terminology -- Belief -- Original Teachings --

Nov 13, 1998 08:21 PM
by Richard Taylor


In a message dated 11/13/98 7:35:12 PM, Dallas corrected this statement:

"The Astral body is the desire body:  -- stated by AB/CWL"



<<But this is not the original teaching of HPB.  See KEY PP 90,

132, 173; and the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, also the SECRET

DOCTRINE, Vol. II, pp. 590 - 634.



So we have the changes in nomenclature made AFTER HPB had passed

away and was not able to refute or correct these statements - and

so what we call "Theosophy" today has problems - and these are

traceable directly to Annie Besant and C W Leadbeater who made

changes-for whatever reason -and very few students went back to

find out what HPB had taught.>>

Here, Dallas couldn't be more right.  I am all for each student making his/her
own discoveries, connections, finding one's own way.  If one wants to coin new
terms, so be it.  But at least be familiar with the *ORIGINAL* writings.
Terms should make things more clear, not less, and Besant definitely changed
the meaning of the word "astral" for whatever reasons, as Dallas says.

I will agree with other writers that HPB had real trouble with the words
"divine," "soul," and "spirit," especially in combination, not because of any
ineptitude but because English really only had those three words to talk about
the amazing diversity and fullness of the invisible world.

If English is now evolving more suitable terms, so be it.  But these newly
coined words should make HPB and the original teachings *more* accessible, not
less.  There may come a time when English evolves so much that HPB's Victorian
English may be as unintelligible for the new student as Beowulf.  Some in the
younger generation claim HPB's writing is so now (probably too extreme here).
But however we "translate" the teachings for the modern era, we must be
extremely careful to correlate with the *original* material, not willy nilly
make things up to suit our fancy.  That would be a personal religion, and not
a faithful grasp of Theosophy as it was presented by the Masters.

I wonder if Dallas would agree with the above?

Rich





[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application