Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00971)

In message <2.2.32.19960517063051.0069108c@mail.deltanet.com>, "Eldon B.
Tucker" <eldon@theosophy.com> writes (quoting Alexis)
>>And I can't help but grit my teeth every time I
>>read G de P calling an animal a "beast." Most animals
>>are more loving and forgiving than humans are.
>
>But I don't think "beast" was meant to indicate savage,
>cruel, monstrous. It meant more "in the wild" or
>uncultured, or uncivilized in human terms.

Maybe not, but this is not how very many people understand the word
*today*.  Once again we are faced with not just the problem, but the
*fact* that the time to update the language and terminology is long
overdue.  Like Alexis, I grit my teeth in such examples; in others I
feel very sad.

As you point out earlier on in your posting, once we get *behind* the
actual words, the teaching is often powerful and noble.  However, it is
the words that people meet first.  If their understanding of the words
is different, their interpretation will be different, and the original
underlying teaching will *not be there for them*.  And so the
theosophical teachings find smaller and smaller audiences.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html