Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00272)

>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 terminology was not changed but much was added. Certain terms and
concepts are interchangeable depending on the context and others are not.
 Literalism is as much a danger to truth as anything.

>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.

 Yes, one should always say what one means, but there are many ways of
saying the same thing and making it clear depending upon one's perspective.

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

 The Teaching is lost when people demand that new teaching take the same
exoteric form as the previous.

Patrick