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

RE: [bn-sd] re: Fundamental Propositions

Jan 12, 2001 05:31 PM
by dalval14

Friday, January 12, 2001

Re: difference in terms used

Dear Mauri:

Looking at early writings and correspondence in Theosophical
matters, it is probable that the writers were communicating among
themselves (and there were then only a very few) in a form of
"short-hand" they were familiar with. As time passed and you can
see this evolving in the magazines as you read them
chronologically, you will see a change and a consolidation of
terms and terminology used in describing the "principles."
"evolution," etc...

As another instance may I observe: The MAHATMA LETTERS were
never supposed to be published, as an instance of this. So, we
breaking in on someone else's correspondence, find them using
phrases which were designed to mean something to them, and not
designed to take us into account when written.

As you read through the SECRET DOCTRINE and ISIS UNVEILED and
also in some of H.P.B.'s Articles, you will find some
peculiarities relative to the language used then, as well as, the
variations which creedal and sectarian deviations introduced in
translating the wisdom originally received to an audience that
used some variation of language, or even a totally different one.
Even a change in pronunciation or the introduction of slang and
vulgarisms produced modifications in writing.

In reverse, try imagining the early "Theosophists" of 1875-82
trying to read what we write in our current "Theosophical"
magazines. The use of a Glossary of Theosophical terms is
advisable, but, even that is no final help. I would say that all
we learn has to be churned, digested and assimilated in the
peculiar "book-volume of our personal brain." To merely take in
someone else's phrases or explanations as data or labels does not
imply we KNOW them or their RELATIONSHIPS.

We are always on our own in these matters. "Authorities" tend to
confuse more than they illuminate. The truly wise only open
doors and windows of suggestion for us. They impose nothing and
make no claims.

Best wishes,



-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri []
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 6:04 AM
Subject: [bn-sd] re: Fundamental Propositions

Responding to:

[bn-sd] re: Fundamental Propositions
Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:55:27 -0800

who wrote:

Dear Mauri

the numbers seem to refer in descending order:

----------- --------------

7. Atma universal ONE SPIRIT (a "Ray" of which is in
Monad (and in us )

6. Buddhi universal WISDOM (the accumulation - in the
substance of the Akasa of the record of all experiences and
lessons or facts learned by any MONAD. Being centralized,
ineffaceable, they form the basis for universal harmony and
equilibrium. They balance action (or cause) with inaction (or
effect). Hence the LAW of KARMA covers them entirely.
is deemed to emanate from the mind's referral of a question of
moral worth to BUDDHI (or rather to the Monad:
these are indissolubly linked and IMMORTAL as well as

5. Manas UNIVERSAL MIND (Mahat) -- the PLAN,
relating to thought,
memory, forgetting, decision making, intellection, ratiocination,
logic, etc... are covered in this the 5th "Principle."

4. Kama (Passions and desires, yearnings, and needs) --
highest level of intelligence to be found in the animal kingdom
(S.D. II 525fn) To be reviewed and controlled by the Mind

But you will have found this classification already present in
the KEY TO THEOSOPHY by H.P.B., which you said you
had studied.

Best wishes,


Dear Dallas,

You responded to my enquiry about the meaning of ". . .
references to the numbers "sixth" and "seventh" "interrogative
words"?" re: ""The interrelation between man and the universe,
the microcosm and the macrocosm, is a mystery so profound
that we have not a sixth appropriate interrogative word even to
formulate a direct question. Further, the mystery within and
behind the Causal Interrogation, Why, is also so profound that
we have not got a seventh interrogative word to
deliberately enquire about it.""

So I'm supposing that I might add here that (while I plead
guilty to rather poor certain educative/memory-related
faculties, in some ways), there might those among us (like
myself, a fairly new student of theosophy) who might be
somewhat puzzled by the advanced students' references to
numbers only, even within "Theosophical contexts". . . That is,
some of us who are less advanced, and attempting to interpret
meanings of words . . . but are, instead, offered . . .
numbers?: That is, what's wrong with just saying, instead of
"sixth": something like "Buddhic-. . .. ", and, instead of
"seventh", something like: "Atmic-. . .", if that was what was
meant? And if the numbers were seen as important in that
context, they could have been added, as in (?): (sixth-)
Buddhic, and (seventh-) Atmic, etc.

And, admittedly, I have a long history of problems with
arithmetical things (among other things).



You are currently subscribed to bn-sd as:
To unsubscribe, forward this message to

[Back to Top]

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