I had someone write in recently in response to my dutch spiritual newsletter. They liked my newsletter, but were confused by some of the terminology. What was an oversoul? Is it the same as Atman? What is the higher Self? I explained the concepts and sent them on to my Dutch theosophical terminology page. The respons was, to my amazement, one more question. Was the higher self the same as atman? I told them: yes, and they should learn to trust their intuition more…
That said, I basically agree that one of the challenges of the TS is its eliteness. We tend to attract people from the higher classes, well educated folk, people who have been to college. The Dutch section is a bit different: but perhaps that’s because Dutch society in general is, relatively speaking, egalitarian.
Anyhow – is that eliteness something to be proud of? Does it mean we don’t have to try and talk in words people understand?
I’m writing this in response to Govert’s recent post. I have an inkling what he might be talking about, but seriously – are words like ‘reflexive experience’ (I guess that means that we should reflect on our experience?, or perhaps the experience of reflecting on our experiences?), or ‘experiential characteristics’ really necessary? I could write an essay on what I think Govert’s post means – but to be honest, I stopped reading quite quickly. If I had been assigned editor of that blog – we don’t have any – I would not have let it go live. Sorry Govert.
I’m making a point of this, because I think we should really try and keep our literature as easy to understand as we can manage. this is even more true for blogs: they are generally aimed at ‘ordinary people’ – in our case: ordinary people interested in spirituality or theosophy.
We should take a leaf out of Eckhart Tolle’s work. He has made it his life’s purpose to put spirituality in terms people can understand. That not only brought him on the Oprah show, it also made him THE spiritual teacher of the moment. Now, his work is hardly interesting if you’ve already read Jiddu Krishnamurti, but that’s not the point. The point is – the TS would do well to at least keep his success in mind, and remember that with each difficult sentence, each difficult word, we loose people.
If I may end this by digressing into a field related to ours: the field of popular science. It is said that each formula in a book about physics will decrease the sales by half. There is obviously a place for books with formula, just as there is a place for books with terms like ‘Atman’, ‘Buddhi’, ‘akasha’ etc. Just as I’m sure there is a place for blogs with terminology like ‘experiential characteristics’. But is it really worth potentially loosing half our readers (me included in this case)?
P.S. I love the idea of a collective effort to disseminate the core teachings in a highly accessible format. Let me just throw this out there, but what about a few of us getting together and working with an illustrator to pen and design a series? If anyone has some examples of the type of thing that might work, please reply with a link.
Hi Dean,
I love the idea of a fun theosophy series. We’ve had a lot of ‘easy theosophy’ literature I think – I’m a bit tired of it, though some of my own online work fits the bill. For instance: http://www.squidoo.com/theosophical-society
But fun is good. It would give us a place to out some of the really fun and interesting historical trivia (red shirted blavatsky in a grey barn in the US outback, for instance) – I’m sure we should be able to get some of those together. And on the other hand, basic info – perhaps in a sort of ‘theosophy for dummies’ format (though I’m sure that precise format is copyrighted)?
Basic topics should include:
Blavatsky, theosophical society the early years, terminology: karma, reincarnation, buddhi, atma, akasha, akashic records, white brotherhood, devachan, Jiddu Krishnamurti controversy, rounds, races etc. Perhaps get people like Michael Gomes and Dianna Chappotin involved for some of the humor (I know I’m not the person for that stuff).
As for Govert’s posts – perhaps a simple disclaimer at the beginning would help: for philosophy majors only (or something). I’ve done quite well at the few philosophy classes I’ve taken, and still don’t know I understood what he was saying.
anyone who has experienced “hodge podge lodge” may be weary of “funny theosophy.”
I saw the terminology in Govert’s post with a different concern.
Govert says in his post, “Below are the names of the principles in both English and Sanskrit followed by descriptions and examples”. This statement implies that the seven principles of man (as he gives them) are THE seven principles that everybody, Theosophist or no, agrees are THE seven principles. He provides a ‘plain English’ name, and a Sanskrit or Pali term as used in Theosophical literature.
I submit, however, that these labels are not necessarily equivilant, and moreover, Govert’s principles are not necessarily THE seven principles as (dis)agreed upon by Theosophists, or even as given by HPB in her writings. There are at least three enumerations of the seven principles given by HPB, several others by later Theosophical writers, and even more by writers in related traditions.
Does everyone understand what is meant by the etheric body, or the astral body, or the pattern body, or the desire body? Are these the same principles, or different? Is manas one principle? or two? HPB said “The physical body is NO principle”. Many of the terms used, both English and Sanscrit, are colored by stereotype and assumtion, and I’m really not sure how much consensus there really is.
I would like to think that the seven principles are like the colors in the rainbow – distinct, ordered, yet blending into each other with no pronounced boundary between them. I have discovered to my dismay, however, that this is not the case. The whole rainbow is in confusion.
Before we can invesitigate our experience of the seven principles of man phenomenomenologically (sp?), we should IMHO have a some consensus, or at least a discussion of the principles and their available labels.
Is this an issue that can perhaps be settled by a commitee followed by an International Convention for a vote? I can imagine Kruschev pounding his shoe on the table when someone proposes “in-between-manas”.
I wonder how confused the outsider must be if indeed these Theosopists themselves don’t know what the heck they’re talking about.
Nice. Blavatsky warned about this problem and a century later it’s still not fixed.
Sticking to the ‘oversoul’ for instance – I assumed it to mean the soul that unites everything – hence sort of Atma. But apparently there is also an association with the underlying unity of all animal souls…