Theos-Talk Archives (September 1999 Message tt00002)

In a message dated 9/1/99 10:44:25 AM, lgregory@discover.net writes:

<< Where did HPB develop her concepts of what an astral or etheric body
is? I would humbly suggest that her concept was derived from a mix of
nineteenth century spiritualism, Samkhya philosophy, and Tibetan lore. What
does it do to Theosophy to make a change in emphasis?  >>

I almost agree with you here.  I think HPB derived the WORDS for her concepts 
from the mix you describe above.  I think her actual concepts are derived 
from her Teachers, who claim to preserve an ancient body of knowledge.

Like you, Art, I am not terribly much concerned with the WORDS we use to 
describe things, these can and do change from time to time.  As I've pointed 
out before, Victorian English and nineteenth century references are 
increasingly difficult for young people today to understand.  But I see 
Dallas' point too that without grasping the MEANING behind the words, 
especially in such a nebulous field (at least nebulous to our immature 
minds), it is easy to get lost.  

It is difficult not to see that, among the many hard workers for Theosophy, 
there have also been some serious miscalculations and errors, often brought 
on by the pride of innovators.  I would like to make a distinction between 
"promulgators" (those who may use any words or references to spead ideas) and 
"innovators" (those who alter or add to or subtract from the teachings to 
present in the end a different system from the original).

I would call the former true students of HPB, and the latter self-styled 
teachers who wish to replace HPB as the figureheads of the movement.  I say 
"figureheads," because if we understand ANYTHING in Theosophy, we understand 
that HPB was not the true leader, but the facilitator and spokesperson (who 
also knew a great deal in her own right).  But as HPB never tired of pointing 
to the entities behind her, those responsible for the ancient wisdom, I wish 
to draw attention once again to the great Teachers who keep this wisdom 
alive.  

Last century such claims sounded like pure hogwash.  But I can say from my 
own decade of experience studying Tibetan Buddhist traditions that such 
"unbroken links" are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT and every Buddhist teacher points to 
the teacher behind him.  Older traditions which tend to decay in lineage and 
power are sometimes supplemented by new presentations (sometimes called 
"terma" or revealed teachings) but the authority to do so must be VERY HIGH 
indeed, and widely recognized among the responsible agents, before it is 
accepted.

I am very skeptical that any Theosophist since HPB's time has met that 
criteria.  In fact, because of each "leader's" non-acceptance, divisions have 
wrought havoc among the Theosophical flock, and in fact continue to do so.  
Why not make an end to "claims" and simply let us study as a team?  Do we 
need to have a supreme authority among us to carry on HPB's work?  I think 
not.  As a collective body working along similar lines, we have all the 
strength and knowledge we'll need.  

Rich Taylor

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.