Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00927)

Jerry S. wrote:

>Rich:<I agree that the presentation of the teaching need to be in the
>language of the people, accessible and understandable. And I agree that
>that's our job, to keep the teaching available in that way.>
 > This from the person who wants me to talk about upper and lower
>manas, buddhi, kama-manas, buddhi-manas, atma-buddhi-manas, etc., etc..?
> Who in today's society has ever heard of such things except a handful of
>theosophists, and how many of them really understand the terms?

Hello, Jerry. Nice to see you back again.

It is one thing, I think, to teach Theosophy to the public using very clear
language and presenting the basics. No Sanskrit,, definitely.

I only ask that those of us here who really want to hammer out in-depth
topics like psychism and globes etc. watch our language. Terms are quite
important when you get down to subtleties.

This is neither a truly "public" forum nor is someone like you likely to be
confused by a few Sanskrit terms which are comparatively precise. When we
say "manas," well that's a broad subject. In public, when I am giving the
teachings, I just give the seven basic principles, and say "mind" and let it
go at that.

When we are questioning what is psychic, what is noetic, what is lower and
higher, dangerous and safe, spiritual and pernicious, a little more
sophistication is needed, no?

I'm fairly certain that you are up for it.

Rich