AAB and HPB, and Keys
Dec 22, 1993 00:55 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Yes, I agree with you, children and family are more
important than anything that goes on here. I will also be seeing
my daughter in a couple of days. She is twenty, and lives in Los
Angeles. I only get to see her only once or twice a year, so I
can especially appreciate how fortunate you are to be able to
spend time with your family.
Your comment that "everyone is right" concerning their views
on successorship is curious, though I agree with it. I believe
that everyone holds to the very belief system that they need at
this time in their lives. As to my own point of view concerning
successorship, I don't particularly care one way or the other.
I'm just a student and a historian with no loyalties--even to
H.P.B., if you get right down to it. My affection for H.P.B.
comes from her position that theosophists are seekers of truth--
not doctrine. But I have met very few people into Theosophy who
genuinely take this position. Most commonly I find people loyal
to this or that Society, or this or that teacher. As Brenda
Tucker pointed out, H.P.B. never intended us to accept her
teachings on blind faith. Even in the Mahatma Letters, the
masters point out that their chelas are not expected to follow
orders without question. Yet most people I have met in this
movement gravitate more towards C.W. Leadbeater's clarion call in
1910, when he said that theosophists loyal to the cause should be
like soldiers, following every wish of the Masters without
question. What a contrast to the message in the Mahatma's own
letters! As far as the issue of successorship goes, every
theosophical organization has claimed some sort of successorship
to H.P.B., with the exception of the United Lodge of
Theosophists, who argue that the whole issue of successorship was
a lot of bunk in the first place. Actually, I think they have
some pretty convincing arguments for their position.
So as you see, in many ways, I'm a pretty lone wolf. The
number of people I know in this movement who are in harmony with
my view point, I can count on the fingers of one hand. But I
have also out lasted most people in this movement. I have been
with it for thirty years, and have seen a lot of pathology in all
of the Organizations, and seen a lot of people come and go. 99
percent of those who were in this movement when I joined are
either dead or they quit years ago.
You say that your "attempt" has been to show myself and
others that we may be overlooking an important source of true
theosophical teaching, and that "no theosophist should be `closed
minded' to new revelation..." From my point of view there was
no *old* "revelation" in the first place. But I won't pursue
this right now, because your definition of "revelation" may be
very different from mine. As for open mindedness, I must point
out to you that I know many members in the Adyar Society who
consider me "very narrow," because I don't share their views.
Over the past thirty years, I have studied the teachings of
Blavatsky, Besant, Leadbeater, Purucker, Judge, Steiner etc. I
have closely read Bailey's Autobiography and read part of
ESOTERIC ASTROLOGY. Eventually, I will get through a large part,
if not all of Bailey's writings. I will make a prediction
however, that is based upon passed experience: Whatever
conclusions I come to, they will probably be different from
yours. Will that mean that I am closed minded?
Regarding your comments on the Christ, please give
references. I am particularly interested in the one pertaining to
Purucker's E.S. teaching are in twelve volumes. $7.00 per
volume, $72.00 for the set. Blavatsky's E.S. Instructions are
included in Vol. 12 of her collected writings, $21.95. Daniel
has shown that Vol. III of the S.D. *contained* manuscript
material that would have made up volume III of the S.D. What
would have been added to this manuscript, or what changes she
would have made if she had lived is anybody's guess. This is out
of print, but I have one copy of this left in paperback, (but is
a little bumped up, otherwise new) that you can have for $8.75
(the original price). The catalogue on Health and Healing is
delayed until the first of the year.
Regarding quotes: I don't mind if you just give an abstract
and citation. I don't know about how others feel.
Now to respond to your "quotes":
1. p. viii. Re. HPB's "prophesy." As you say, he gives no
reference. After over twenty years of reading Blavatsky, I have
never seen this, and since I pay close attention to prophesy, I'm
sure I would have remembered it. Where did she write this?
Without reference to this "prophesy," Blavatsky's statement as
cited by Brenda, can just as easily be read as having nothing to
do with Bailey's work. In fact, I could argue that Brenda's
quote can fit Purucker's works quite well.
2. p. xii. I made no conjecture regarding what psychology meant
at the time of HPB or AAB, in my message to Brenda Tucker. I
said that "Psychology in the 1880's was associated with
hypnotism, and was unknown in ancient times, except as a form of
magic." This is not "conjecture" but information you can find in
any standard book dealing with the history of the psychoanalytic
movement. The quote you give here defines psychology as:
"an elucidation of the relation existing between spirit and
matter, which relation demonstrates as consciousness."
However Bailey wants to define psychology is OK with me.
But this is not the understanding of the word in the 1880's, and
is not how H.P.B. uses the term. For "consciousness," HPB uses
the term "consciousness." For "psychology" HPB uses the term
"psychology." Can you show me a quote from HPB that does
For consciousness, HPB refers to that as an aspect of the
second part of the triple evolutionary scheme. See the SD vol. I
p. 181, second full paragraph etc. Therefore, I amend my last
statement that "HPB did not have a psychological key" to: H.P.B.
did not have a psychological key either according to the standard
definition of psychology during her time, or to the definition
given on page xii of TCF. I will hold this position, until
someone finds a quote where HPB cites a psychological key, or
shows that this psychological key is another term for one of the
keys she has given. I'm still patiently waiting.
3. p xvi. The third revised Edition was published in 1893, two
years after H.P.B.'s death. As I had pointed out earlier, some
U.L.T. students counted over 10,000 changes in this edition from
the one published by HPB. Is the use of this edition an
endorsement to the correctness of these changes? Does the use of
this edition imply that this edition is superior to the original?
4. p xvii. I have read the quotes as you suggested.
I am really at a loss to know why you have such
a hard time verifying for yourself whether TCF is compatible
with SD or not. You seem to have very thoroughly researched
SD and it seems to me that you will be able to catch any
'hanky panky' material right away. What, my dear Sir,
prevents you from quoting an incompataibility between TCF
and SD, so we can put the issue of the 'genuineness' of AAB
as a spiritual teacher to test? If it is mere lack of time,
I can understand. But if it is that 'others say that AAB
was a channeler' or something like that, you need to
re-examine your position!
I'm afraid that you have confused me here. This was the
first time I was aware that you wanted me to quote an
"incompatability between TCF and SD." Since I have never read
TCF, how could I quote such an incompatability? I never had any
intention of searching for any incompatibilities to quote to you
in the first place. I have better things to do with my time. My
purpose was to compare the works of AAB with those of HPB. I am
well read on HPB and have read a little of AAB. You are well
read on AAB and have read a little of HPB. Therefore, I thought
we would be able to explore these writings together, using each
other's area of expertise. I suggest you re-read my earliest
messages to you where I had proposed this collaborative study in
the first place. From your above statement, my guess is that you
are coming from the assumption that HPB and AAB's writing are
compatible, and further, my guess is that you are also assuming
that I am assuming that they are not. Since I never declared
such an assumption (and frankly I don't really care whether they
turn out to be compatible or incompatible), I think you are being
unfair to me.
I also don't recall writing that I wanted to put AAB's
genuineness "as a spiritual leader" to a test. How does
comparing AAB to HPB test AAB as a spiritual leader? Obviously
she is a spiritual leader, because she has followers who regard
her as a spiritual leader. Are you suggesting that AAB's
genuineness as a spiritual leader depends upon HPB? What if HPB
was found not to be genuine? Then what happens to AAB? Perhaps
you need to clarify what you mean.
Whether or not AAB was a "channeler" is another question,
which I also never raised. In fact, I'm not sure as to what you
mean by "channeler." I assume you are referring to how she got
her information. If you mean something different, you will need
to clarify. As I recall, Bailey discussed how she got her
information in her Autobiography, and I had taken her
description, like everything else, at face value. Are you
suggesting that I was wrong in doing this?
My understanding of this dialogue, is that we are comparing
the works of these two writers. Presently, we are trying to
solve this issue concerning the "psychological key" and the
prophesy in TCF that HPB prophesied that someone would write a
"psychological key" to the SD. I'm being perfectly straight
forward with you when I say that I have never read such a
prophesy. If it exists, I want to see the reference. If HPB
named a psychological key, I want to see that reference too. If
we find these references, our understanding of both HPB and AAB
will be enriched. If we find that they don't exist, then we will
be enriched by that too. It is a win-win situation.
I found your message just as I was ready to upload the above
and go to bed. You are right, to answer everything you brought
up will take another seven pages of writing and I will never get
my paper done. But I want to quickly clarify a couple of things
you raised about the keys:
The seven keys can be used to interpret every symbol and
allegory. Though the Hebrews only had the lower keys, the Bible
can still be interpreted from all seven keys.
I don't think the astronomical aspect refers to astrology as
we understand it, but they are related. Though H.P.B. isn't very
specific in the quote you found as to how the keys may work from
the psychological or astronomical aspect, and which from the
physical or metaphysical, she does give some examples in the body
of the book, that can be used as a guide. The psychological
aspect, as she demonstrated in Isis Unveiled, fits well in giving
meaning to the physical key. She gave an example in vol. II p.
63 (though she doesn't label it as an example) of an astronomical
key interpreted from an astronomical aspect, so we can see how
this works. The metaphysical aspect isn't a key either, but
could work with the physical key, the geometric key, and I think
the astronomical in some cases. The thing with the aspects, is
that they really don't belong to any keys, they are just
different ways of looking at allegories and symbols when looking
at the same through one key or another. In other words, you
might look at the allegory of the war in heaven according to the
astronomical key, and find a psychological aspect to this
interpretation. Take for example the symbol "gold." From an
astro-chemical key (depending upon its context in an allegory)
this symbol may indicate spiritual purity. But looking at this
same symbol, in context with the allegory, you might note that
looking at it from the psychological aspect, you might find that
psychological wholeness fits this allegory. Or from an
astronomical aspect, you might find a hidden reference to the
sun. I hope this is more illuminating than confusing. If I
confused you, let me know, and I will try again with the more
concrete example of an actual allegory.
You might be right about the psychological aspect having to
do with all four lower keys. I'll have to think that one
through. But the most important point here, is that the
relationship of the aspects to the keys is contextual, not rigid.
An aspect may work with one key in one allegory, but not work
with the same key in another allegory.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application