Words and language may be difficult to define if you are in a theosophical group which derives its terminology from Blavatsky.
Many early teachers who adapted sufistic teachings to Western audiences utilized Blavatsky's terminology.
Some examination of Blavatsky's terms and usage may be useful here.
A good source for Anthroposophy is by Maria Carlson and entitled No Religion Higher Than Truth--a survey of Theosophy and Anthroposophy in Russia between 1875-1922. Unless things have changed in the last few weeks, the book is out of print and very expensive. The one copy thats 22 bucks is on half.com ebay and cannot be ordered because the person who placed that listing is on vacation.
[www.google.com]
The book can be obtained from ones public library using the Link Plus interlibrary loan program and is well worth a peek, because Carlson gives wonderful information and a useful compare and contrast between Blavatskian Theosophy and Steiner's Anthroposophy.
She also describes how these ideologies permeated the Russian social and intellectual scene and exactly how some writers (Belyi and others) and visual artists (Kandinsky) and musicians (eg Scriabin) itentionally were influenced by Theosophy. Carlson even goes so far to state that learning the terminology and themes of Theosophy can assist greatly in understanding the ouvre of various artists of that time.
Her footnotes are as readable as the text. She says something about Blavatsky's writing that perhaps also applies to that of SAW:
She states that she found Blavatsky's writing to be 'hynotic and associative.' In a footnote, I think following chapter 4 or 5, she goes further and states that the problem with reading Blavatsky, Besant, Steiner and other esotericists, is that these authors do not reason according to causal logic or by use of objective evidence and premises. Instead, they write -- let me get a photocopy and type it out--
Many early teachers who adapted sufistic teachings to Western audiences utilized Blavatsky's terminology.
Some examination of Blavatsky's terms and usage may be useful here.
A good source for Anthroposophy is by Maria Carlson and entitled No Religion Higher Than Truth--a survey of Theosophy and Anthroposophy in Russia between 1875-1922. Unless things have changed in the last few weeks, the book is out of print and very expensive. The one copy thats 22 bucks is on half.com ebay and cannot be ordered because the person who placed that listing is on vacation.
[www.google.com]
The book can be obtained from ones public library using the Link Plus interlibrary loan program and is well worth a peek, because Carlson gives wonderful information and a useful compare and contrast between Blavatskian Theosophy and Steiner's Anthroposophy.
She also describes how these ideologies permeated the Russian social and intellectual scene and exactly how some writers (Belyi and others) and visual artists (Kandinsky) and musicians (eg Scriabin) itentionally were influenced by Theosophy. Carlson even goes so far to state that learning the terminology and themes of Theosophy can assist greatly in understanding the ouvre of various artists of that time.
Her footnotes are as readable as the text. She says something about Blavatsky's writing that perhaps also applies to that of SAW:
She states that she found Blavatsky's writing to be 'hynotic and associative.' In a footnote, I think following chapter 4 or 5, she goes further and states that the problem with reading Blavatsky, Besant, Steiner and other esotericists, is that these authors do not reason according to causal logic or by use of objective evidence and premises. Instead, they write -- let me get a photocopy and type it out--
Quote
One of the major reasons that Theosophy and Anthroposophy are difficult to define and outline concisely is that both doctrines continually redefine basic concepts (such as Logos, Christ, soul, spirit, plane, and so forth) according to the immediate demands of the point under discussion.
The understanding of the various terms also change with time, topic, exegete, and the point of the argument: Mrs Besant and Rudolf Steiner, for example, frequently (though not always), mean very different things when they use the word Logos; their definitions are, in turn, different from either the traditional Christian or Gnostic understanding of that important term. At the same time, enough points of coincidence lull the reader into a false sense of identity of concepts. The result is that becomes impossible to get a real grip on what should be basic building block ideas.
Furthermore, occultists tend to develop their arguments not by deduction or even induction, but by analogy. The reader, at the time of reading, momentarily senses the relationship of terms and intuitively or sympathetically perceives a parallel; afterward, understanding vanishes.*
(See note at bottom of this article - Corboy)
"Finally (Carlson continues) not only do the Theosophists constantly redefine their own terms, but they "translate" the statements of non Theosophists into their own terminology, invariably muddling the translation. Their definitions of basic concepts are unfortunately so loose and subjective that just about any alien concept can be subsumed by them. Thus, for example, Anne Kamenskaia, discussing Fedor Dostoevsky (who was not much taken with oriental philosophy) blithely attributes to him the idea that mankind will achieve spiritual heights not through sorrow and suffering, but through the radiant flight of an exultant soul liberated from the chains of karma (!), although Dostoevsky would never have chosen to express himself in that way.
(Maria Carlson, No Religion Higher Than Truth: A History of the Thesophical Movement in Russia 1875-1922 Princeton University 1993, page 229, footnote to Chapter 5: Theosophical Doctrine: An Outline.
quote]
Note:Quote
definitions are, in turn, different from either the traditional Christian or Gnostic understanding of that important term. At the same time, enough points of coincidence lull the reader into a false sense of identity of concepts. The result is that becomes impossible to get a real grip on what should be basic building block ideas.
Furthermore, occultists tend to develop their arguments not by deduction or even induction, but by analogy. The reader, at the time of reading, momentarily senses the relationship of terms and intuitively or sympathetically perceives a parallel; afterward, understanding vanishes.
(Corboy note: I am not sure, but perhaps this "not by deduction or even induction, but by analogy' alludes to the kind of dream like primary process thought one encounters in dreams or in the thought process of children not yet able to engage in formal logic.
Primary process thought and emotion are richly creative for artists, but incompatible with adult logic and scientific and historical problem solving.
This primary process thought and emotion is incapable of noting and registering boundary violations and violations of ethical guidelines.
If students are not given terminology with precise stable definitions, they will be unable to utilize adult formal logic when studying this material and cannot begin to think for themselves.
If a sufistic or theosophical group's terminology remains fluid, cannot be discussed, and remains dependent on whimsical definitions by the Master, students remain intellectually subservient to the Master.
If students must use a terminology that is unstable, a terminology that is used in an unpredictable, arbitrary manner, they will remain insecure and in need of a 'Master'. It is not ones own fault--the text has been written out in a manner that mimics adult logic but that is actually pre-logical and possibly for some readers, hypnotic. [/i]