Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00212)

>Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:21:23 -0800
>From: "Richard Taylor" <richtay@aol.com>
>Subject: Confusion in terminology -- Belief -- Original Teachings --

Nov. 14th 1998

Dallas reviews what Rich Tailor offers.  Please see below his
posting.

Dal



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

Nov 14th

Dallas  offers


Dear Rich

Thee appears to be some confusion over the use of English.  You
as a student of many religious and ancient texts are familiar
with the way in which words confuse meanings.

So there is always an outer and an inner meaning and it is of
course difficult to distinguish clearly between the two if one
focuses solely on the exterior style and superficial meaning.

Personally I am not daunted by any change in style of writing as
the English, to me has not changed in meaning..

I would not worry much over whether others have to labor to
relearn English because our educational system  is faulty.  Those
who want to learn will learn.

Dallas