From Robert Crosbie's "The Friendly Philosopher" p.17

"Our daily lives give us the best opportunities to practice concentration, and for increase of knowledge by making Theosophy a living power in our lives.

You speak of control. Control is the power of direction, and when exercised in one way, leads to its exercise in other ways until it covers the whole field of operation. A way to control speech is to think of the probable effect of what one is about to say. This insures deliberation, and the speech carries with it the force of intention, The deliberation takes no appreciable time in practice - a thought towards it, a glance at effects; it is really an attitude of purposive speech where in all the processes are practically simultaneous"

May we hear your thoughts, comments and questions on this topic?

Views: 220

Replies to This Discussion

A good quote and important to consider.  To first imagine the effect on others of your planned comments is both considerate and allows for a carefulness. 

I can think of all the times when I've talked before reflecting, and have a number of cringe-worthy memories of those occassions.  It has taught me the hard way to think first, even for a moment, before talking.  As someone who I greatly respect once said - 'it's more important what comes out of your mouth than what goes into it'. 


I find for myself that most speech is merely reactive, sad to say.  I have to make a conscious effort to pause before speaking and I only remember to do this on the odd and challenging occasion.  Study groups and collective gatherings offer more reason to pause but in the common use of language around the house and at work, %99 is reactive.  I think it takes real practice and mind control to make this an "all the time" discipline.

do others have experiences with this?

One of my favorite examples of this (and I did this just yesterday), is when someone says something to me like "enjoy your lunch", and I automatically reply "you too", only to instantly realize... they're not eating lunch. The response is 100% automatic and it's out of my mouth before I know it. These kinds of things always give me pause to examine how consciously and mindfully I'm being.

It's said that the Pythagorean system had a vow of silence for new members for 5 years (or was it 3?). I can see the value of this on several levels!

It makes one wonder.....who is replying?   Are these a bunch of elementals I have impressed in the past and they are on auto pilot?

Thoughts on your questions:

1. Speech is the expression of thought in the realm of sound.  Thought precedes uttered speech.  Both are very deep and very mysterious and very powerful.

2. I don't understand the question.  Please restate.

3. Absolutely, they are both expressions of character.  From within without we are taught.

To be master, we must have control, in all things pertaining to our kingdom or house; if we are swayed by impatience, by irritation at the words and acts of others, by impulse, habit of mind or body, “we” are not in control. We frequently are thus swayed, while knowing better, which indicates that we have not gone to work in earnest to obtain control, or perhaps in the wrong way. Applying analogy, it would seem that the latter consists in the modern method of proceeding from particulars to universals, and that the process should be reversed. We would then begin with the idea, attitude, and purpose of control in all things that concern the vassals of our house. The advance would then be all along the line, and the habit of control established, the balance preserved. It sums itself up in my mind as the establishment of control itself, irrespective of the things controlled. The “attack in detail” is the other way, but seems to me to have the disadvantage of being open to disturbance from the rest of the “details” while assaulting any one point. General Control might lose his title, and even his name in the mêlée. Each “warrior,” however, having in view the forces and disposition of the enemy, must make his own fight in the way that seems to him best.

“That power which the Disciple shall covet is that which shall make him appear as nothing in the eyes of men.”

 Whom can attests to the authentication of authority and its value by the "force of intention" which perhaps a few high calibers lust for pleonexia by manipulating force of aversion to conduct order by mastering direction? Why not cultivate Karuna through untaught edict which eventually by the Law of Evolution will attain highest degree of soul life without exerting a committee?   

Perhaps the value of "force of intention" is Love without selfish desire?

Speech is a highly Occult subject, as it has a lot of fields of study behind it. In my opinion, speech and thought may go hand and hand.

There have been many great points brought up in these comments, from speech being reactive, and, speech being the expression of thought in the realm of sound. Thought precedes uttered speech. We can see that speech is one of the main modes of self expression on this plane.

An interesting observation about thought proceeding uttered speech. Speech is the vehicle for thought no doubt, and if one were to really concentrate on the process of speech formation, their speech will be a direct expression of a thought made manifest- through a series of vibrations (uttered speech)- impacting the listener.  T. Subba Row talks about thought transference in "Esoteric Writings" as it seems to be a similar process, minus the physical uttered speech.  Everything that we can perceive is through vibrations. It is said in the S.D. that our physical senses have astral counterparts (senses), which in truth, receive these vibrations first, then relay it to the physical senses. There would be no communication with out this medium, the astral light.  

So, what is speech but vibrations? I've always thought that vibrations are "colorless."  When we speak, we "color" these vibrations by means of desire, will, and intention, sending them outward to the receiver. It seems to me, that perhaps it is not so much the words we hear when we listen to people talk, but to the intentions, the underlining coloring of the thought or idea to be communicated.  Could it be that speech is a temporary mode of expression? What then remains constant? 


Q: "What then remains constant?"

A: Thought

Speech and writing has great power.  It conveys ideas and can be used to persuade.  It can also be used to hurt, sometimes unintentionally, but hurt none the less.  This is why we should always be mindful of what we are saying, how we are saying it, and who we are saying it to.  In fact, to be silent and to say nothing can speak volumes all by itself.  The pen (or the mouth) is often mightier than the sword (look at wiki leaks).

We can read a little interesting bit in HPB's "The Secret Doctrine" on page 555 vol.1 ;

"We say and maintain that Sound, for one thing, is a tremendous Occult power; that it is a stupendous force, of which the electricity generated by a million of Niagaras could never counteract the smallest potentiality when directed with occult knowledge. Sound may be produced of such a nature that the pyramid of Cheops would be raised in the air, or that a dying man, nay, one at his last breath, would be revived and filled with new energy and vigour.

For Sound generates, or rather attracts together, the elements that produce an ozone, the fabrication of which is beyond chemistry, but within the limits of Alchemy."

This isn't to do with 'uttered speech', however, it is easy to see that speech is indeed sound. What our intentions may be, sometimes are not always represented in our speech. Perhaps if we focused on thought before speaking, our words will be more powerful? Perhaps representing our the intention better.

The above is the "terrestrial force" of "divine thought" through its potency of sound from its atmosphere, perhaps the equivalent of the "four elements of the Ancients". On page 307 v.1, says "...vibration in the air is sure to awaken corresponding powers..."

The occult significance of speech is like a ball of smoke without its fire. The power of the fire is there to accompany the smoke just as the sound of speech is. To get what I am saying, "The Power of Thought" (ether), "The Power of Visualization" (matter), and "The Power of Speech" (energy) generates the Power of Motion (motive). 

Energies have always been and are always circulating, all the time, in constant movement, however, these energies has not always been constant in thought on the physical plane. Until the vitality of these energies are known and that they are living within all through nature is understood, than the scientist could prepare for work.

"Energy flows through thought" and the ability to distinguish between the different types of energies and knowing their PH balance per se, may serve to be more important than the focus of thought before one sounds their speech. Thought is just as potent as speech if not more powerful than the sound of speech itself, which is why one much be mindful of their own thoughts. The occultist should refrain from thinking in the lower vibratory energies and focus their thoughts within the higher vibratory energies. 

"Perhaps representing our the intention better."  Perhaps the intentions should be from the "heart of love" and far away from selfish desires.

"What then remains constant?"  Energy. 

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gerry Kiffe on August 18, 2013 at 11:17pm


Would you mind explaining what you mean by this:

"Energy flows through thought" and the ability to distinguish between the different types of energies and knowing their PH balance per se, may serve to be more important than the focus of thought before one sounds their speech.  ?

Permalink Reply by Gerry Kiffe on August 18, 2013 at 11:13pm

Wonderful contribution here Kristan.  Pausing before speaking to consider the consequences is an exceedingly hard discipline.  I find it almost impossible to maintain but you are right we ought to try it.

Permalink Reply by Kristan Stratos on August 29, 2013 at 9:07am

I just stumbled across something that I would like to contribute to this discussion.  It might seem a little out of place at first, but I think with some exercise we might be able to find the connection.

In the SD (stanza IV; p.93-96 vol.I) there is a lot of very interesting information given out.  For instance, "how Speech came into existence, and which was prior to the other, Speech or Mind?" 

If we look at this from a metaphysical view, we can simply look back to the fundamentals. I'm sure some may have them pretty much memorized, so I will not list them (others, check the proem p.14-19).  However, T. Subba Row speaks of four principles, in "Notes on the Bhagavad-Gita," which are: Parabrahman, The Logos, The Light of the Logos, and the Objective Form. 

We can link this with the four kinds of Vach (Vak), which he explains; 

"Our old writers said that Vach is of four kinds. These are called para, pasyanti, madhyama, vaikhari. This statement you will find in the Rig Veda itself and in several of the Upanishads. Vaikhari Vach is what we utter. Every kind of vaikhari Vach exists in it madhyama, further in its pasyanti, and ultimately in its para form. The reason why this Pranava is called Vach is this, that these four principles of the great cosmos correspond to these four forms of Vach. Now the whole manifested solar system exists in its sukshma form in this light or energy of the Logos, because its image is caught up and transferred to cosmic matter, and again the whole cosmos must necessarily exist in the one source of energy from which this light emanates. The whole cosmos in its objective form is vaikhari Vach, the light of the Logos is the madhyama form, and the Logos itself the pasyanti form, and Parabrahmam the para aspect of that Vach. It is by the light of this explanation that we must try to understand certain statements made by various philosophers to the effect that the manifested cosmos is the Verbum manifested as cosmos." (p.24)

So we see:
Parabrahman..... Para
The Logos..........Pasyanti
Light of the Logos....Madhyama
Objective Form........Vaikhari-Vach

When we begin to make the connection, can we see this same process take place as we begin to communicate in "uttered-speech?"  And will this hold true within the other person, as being a receiver to our speech?

Holding in mind what has been read in the Secret Doctrine, p.93 vo.1:

"When our Soul (mind) creates or evokes a thought, the representative sign of that thought is self-engraved upon the astral fluid, which is the receptacle and, so to say, the mirror of all the manifestations of being... To pronounce a word is to evoke a thought, and make it present: the magnetic potency of the human speech is the commencement of every manifestation in the Occult World. To utter a Name is not only to define a Being (an Entity), but to place it under and condemn it through the emission of the Word (Verbum), to the influence of one or more Occult potencies... The Word (Verbum) or the speech of every man is, quite unconsciously to himself, a BLESSING or a CURSE; this is why our present ignorance about the properties or attributes of the IDEA as well as about the attributes and properties of MATTER, is often fatal to us."