Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00257)

>I find it meaningful. It is not evangelical Christian -- nor is there
>any emotionalism involved -- visionary phraseology relates to there are
>higher planes. All of the concepts and their attendant assumptions can be
>found in the writings referred to previously.

Patrick, if all of the concepts are there as you claim (and I strenuously
disagree), why did the Tibetan, and Alice Bailey, and apparently you, feel
this overwhelming urge to change all the terminology, confuse the issue, and
make everything Christianized? What is wrong with using the terms that were
given out at the start?

The Mahatma Letters warn that terminology is most important, and Sinnett is
repeatedly told not to use "ring" when he means "round," and to differentiate
"planet" from "globe," and amke all terms used exceedingly clear -- or the
teaching will be lost.

Following these lines -- with Christian Alice Bailey, the teaching has
apparently been lost.

Rich