Theos-Talk Archives (November 1993 Message tl00013)

Arvind Kumar

     The research of six years ago on AAB and HPB is on a backup
disk deeply buried somewhere.  There is also a hard copy around,
but probably yet to be unpacked.  We have been living in this
house for about a year, and there are still dozens of boxes still
unopened from when we left Los Angeles in the summer of 1990. As
I recall, the "research" was more of a compilation of data,
comparing parallel passages, then an exposition of conclusions.
It wasn't even in the first draft stage.  Since it is so
incomplete, I would feel a bit embarrassed to make it available
until it is in a more comprehensive form. By that time, we will
probably have long ago covered everything in that paper anyway.
But when I do run across it, I will be happy to share the
correlations, as they will save us both a lot of unnecessary
work.
     In order to comment on the passage you cite in the S.D.
concerning someone coming in the 20th century to "explain" more
the book, I will need to know the page number where I can find
this passage.  Also, please advise me as to the edition,
publisher and date of THE SECRET DOCTRINE that you are using.
Editions vary in page numbering, and sometimes are even edited.
     I'm aware of AAB's statements that the `brothers' formed a
part of a "Spiritual Hierarchy of the planet."  My concern on
this point is that I have never found such a hierarchical
structure in HPB's writings.  There are several possible reasons
for this, e.g.: It was a deeper teaching that H.P.B. couldn't
speak of; HPB misunderstood the organization; AAB misunderstood
the organization; AAB misunderstood HPB, I misunderstood HPB, The
teaching is really there, but in a writing I haven't yet read
etc.  The connection of the seven rays with a spiritual hierarchy
is also, as far as I know, not in HPB's writings.  Though this
hierarchy idea is a basic point in our dialogue, it probably will
take some time before we will have gathered together enough
material to come to some meaningful conclusions.
     Regarding my statement about the Mahatmas being regarded as
"demi-gods,"  I was applying the statement to popular conceptions
of them.  I didn't mean to imply that AAB referred to them as
such.  But my impression is that AAB's characterization of them
is more consistent with a popular conception than the one given
by HPB and in the MAHATMA LETTERS.  I'll expand on this idea
later when I have a little more time, and after a little more
foundation has been laid.  But perhaps in the mean time, you will
be able to show that I'm under a misconception.
     You mentioned the writings of Leadbeater.  I have had
several Bailey students tell me that AAB considered Leadbeater's
writings "suspect."  Everyone who has mentioned it, has regarded
it as common knowledge, and I never was quick enough at the time
to question them on it.  Do you know the source of this
information, and if true, the basis for her saying so?
     Regarding Benjamine Creme.  Yes, we had some representatives
from the Tara Foundation do a presentation at the Los Angeles
Branch of the Theosophical Society, back in the late seventies. I
also have somewhere, a tape of an interview he gave on the radio
in Los Angeles.  He acknowledges being familiar with the writings
of AAB and HPB, but unless he really is the "predicted" messenger
for the last quarter of this century, his testimony will throw
little light on the present dialogue.  At this time, I'm not
convinced that he is, nor am I sure that he represents himself to
be that "messenger."
     Regarding Stephenson's book; are you saying that Leadbeater
wrote that DK was given the mandate to give out the teachings in
three installments?  If so, where did Leadbeater write this?
     I don't have a subscription to the BEACON, so issue and page
number isn't necessary.  Your citation that the quote is from an
article entitled "The Principle of Limitation" by Mary Bailey,
and that it appeared in the July-August `93 issue of the BEACON,
is sufficient information for me at this time.


Brenda Tucker

     I'm delighted to see that you raised the often repeated
complaint that theosophy is outdated.  Yet the scientific
material that you discussed from THE SECRET DOCTRINE, shows how
remarkably up to date Blavatsky's writings really are.  This is
not only true of her treatment of science, but in other areas as
well.  Even though her works are over a century old, Blavatsky's
writings always remain current.  As you may know, Lina Psaltis'
DYNAMICS OF THE PSYCHIC WORLD, is a compilation of Blavatsky's
writings on that subject.  Lina used to remark about how often
people would approach her after reading DYNAMICS and talk about
how up to date Blavatsky's ideas on the subject seemed to be.  Of
all of the times that I heard people complain about theosophy
being out of date, I've never heard that complaint from anyone
who has really sat down and read Blavatsky's writings.
     I think there are still many untapped hints in THE SECRET
DOCTRINE, awaiting for bright and intuitive minds to explore.
They don't have to be MIT students either.


Eldon Tucker

     Thank you for your discussion on group Karma.  However, I
have some difficulty applying your ideas in the way you express
them to current events.  The recent Los Angeles Riots, for
instance--how would you apply these ideas of group karma?  Or in
the case of the recent fires in Los Angeles, that burned hundreds
of homes.  How does group karma apply here?


Jerry Hejka-Ekins