[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Happy Holidays

Dec 22, 1993 01:18 PM
by Arvind Kumar

I know that several of us are going to be absent from these
discussions for a while due to holidays so before I begin my 'quick
response to Jerry H-E, let me take this opportunity to wish all on
this network

Season's Greetings,
Merry Christmas, and
Happy New Year!




(The Great Invocation, first stanza)

I'll be back next Monday.
Happy Holidays to all/Arvind

Quick Response to Jerry H-E

Jerry H-E,

Let me begin by apologizing for perhaps going beyond the 'norms of
brotherly behaviour' in my previous message where towards the end I
became somewhat accusatory in the statements that you have cited
regarding why you have not already read TCF etc....In hindsight, I
should have re-worded it completely; you are completely correct that
it is a win-win situation for all concerned.

Other comments within your message below.  Best Regards/Arvind

> 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.

The issue of successorship is of little interest on its own, but I do
want to let you know that AAB was the 'route' (I do not want to use
the word 'medium') through which Hierarchy/DK gave the second
installment of the 'teaching', the third installment will come in
early 20th century, the first installment came through HPB, according
to the info in the blue books.

In our small ways each one of us is a 'successor' to HPB if we try to
follow her injunction to look for the truth. BTW, DK (and not AAB) is
said to be the disciple that HPB had supposedly prophesied would come
in the 20th century to expand on Gupta Vidya etc...

>      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.

I am very pleased to know that you have been in this 'movement' for so
many years. I am very much of a newcomer, having found out about
Bailey/theosophy only less than 5 years ago. Yes, it is true, most
organizations tend to grow old and 'crystallized' in their thinking;
hence the emphasis by K on on leaving any religious type of
organization behind...

>      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?

I do not think that your view is 'narrow-minded' at all (those who
call you narrow-minded are no doubt narrow-minded themselves, due to
what I call the law of reflection: 'what you see in others is a
reflection of yourself'!) I agree with you that no two persons will
reach same conclusions after reading the same material...hidden in
this is perhaps another law," no two snow-flakes (what to speak of
human beings) are alike"!

>      Regarding your comments on the Christ, please give
> references. I am particularly interested in the one pertaining to
> Krishnamurti.

It is a brief pragraph in DINA, which I will point out hopefully on
Monday. I do not have the blue books with me here at the office but
you can look under index in Discipleship in the New Age, and hopefully
K's name will be there (otherwise I'll give the ref on Monday anyways).

>      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.

I hope to send you a check for at least these books over the holidays,

>      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.

That is ok with me for now.

> 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
> otherwise?

Not right now, and again, it is not so important as the fact that AAB
has presented TCF as an 'expansion' or a sequel with more info along
the same lines as given in SD, so all students of SD should be
interested in investigating whether there indeed is new info, and if
so, what that info is. This is my opinion! Hopefully, we both can take
a few sections each of TCF and agree to study them and point out what
the differences are if any, with SD.  Even though I am about 150 pages
shy of finishing my first reading of SD that is absolutely no
guarantee that I have 'understood' more than 10% of what is said in it
(the same BTW goes for AAB books that I have read, but some of them I
have re-read a few times...

Are there any other takers out there
(Brenda/Eldon/Paul/Don/Jerry S/John...) to join us in this search?
What do you think, and can we try to 'flush out' this thought a little
bit and perhaps come up with a conjecture or a hypothesis before we
begin the study...

>      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?

There is no endorsement as far as I know by AAB that the third edition
of SD is the most sacrosant; more likely that was the edition that she
had access to, or was perceived to be the most popular at the time...

> 4. p xvii.  I have read the quotes as you suggested.
>      You wrote:
>      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.

My apologies again for miscommunicating. Yes, let us attempt to
compare TCF with SD as I suggested  elsewhere (above).

>      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?

As John Mead and perhaps others on this network have pointed out, AAB
commands a substantial following, and she is one of the stalwarts of
the theosophic movement no matter what you or I  think. I do believe
that she as well as HPB were 'genuine', and in fact 'disproving' HPB
is tantamount to disproving AAB, due to the statements in AAB's
writings about HPB.

The only reason I have heard as to why 'mainstream' theosophists have
problems with AAB is that they think she used 'astral' channeling to
write her books. This is bunk, in my opinion. The test of the pudding
is in its taste, that is why I am hoping that at least a good, sincere
effort at understanding what Bailey has written is worthwhile.

>      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.

Got to go now. I do wish to once again thank you for your patience in
dealing with me and rather well-researched responses (at least as
compared to my responses) on various topics.

In Brotherhood,


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application