Theos-Talk Archives (January 1994 Message tl00074)

Arvind

     O.K., so your solution is that the H.P.B.'s "Astral Body"
(i.e. Linga Sarira) is the same of Leadbeater's Etheric Double.
I'am interested in hearing your arguments for this match.

     Yes H.P.B. occasionally uses the term "Causal Body"--it is
the reincarnating Ego "which is held responsible for all the sins
committed through and in, every new body or personality--the
evanescent masks which hide the true individual through the long
series of rebirths" (Key to Theosophy p. 136).  You account of
AAB's explanation of the "Causal Body," as far as you go with it,
doesn't seem to contradict my understanding of H.P.B.'s concept.

     The words "soul" and "ego" have special meanings with
H.P.B., and probably with A.A.B. as well.  We'll get to all of
that soon enough.

     Yes Leadbeater's Chakra diagram has become standard.  I
often see his individual chakra illustrations reproduced from
time to time in new age literature.  Further, Leadbeater's
CHAKRAS has continuously been the Quest Book best seller ever
since it came out.  However, these facts are not evidence to me
of the correctness or incorrectness of his book.

     I was only stating that some major themes in A.A.B.'s
teachings are to be found in E.S. material distributed and taught
to pledged members long before they appeared in her books.  It
was not intended to be a "charge" against her, but only a simple
observation, based upon a comparison of some of A.A.B.'s writings
to E.S. materials.  But my point concerning this, was really a
theory, not a charge.  My theory is that the E.S. was mad at her
for making public E.S. teachings.  That she did not credit the
E.S. for the material is a point in her favor from the point of
view of the E.S.  I only suggested it as a more probable
explanation for the anti-Bailey feeling in the E.S., than the oft
heard statement that she was a medium of some sort.  Which may be
a red herring.

     I will send you a copy of the Senzar Pamphlet and Paul's
book, and also the Endersby material over the weekend. You're
right, the phone number is not on the Invoice.  It is (209) 669-
7394.

     Re. the "loops" you want to close:

(a) I'm glad to hear that you feel that H.P.B.'s and A.A.B.'s use
of the term "psychology" match.  On that point, I have no opinion
until I have read more A.A.B.  But whether or not they use the
term in the same way is not evidence to me that TCF is the
"psychological key."  In fact, until we find the prediction that
Foster Bailey mentions, I'm not convinced that a "psychological
key" was ever predicted.  Isn't there anyone in the Arcane school
who can find this reference?  It seems to me that anyone really
familiar with A.A.B.'s writing would be able to tell you where to
find it right off the top of their heads.  Or doesn't anyone pay
attention to references?

(b) I'll send you more oddities on Leadbeater later.  I'm a
little short of time right now.

(c) If you are benefiting from A.A.B.'s spiritual practices, you
have my concurrence that A.A.B. is doing some good.  I'm aware of
people's complaints that H.P.B. does not "preach a particular way
of life or spiritual practice."  They are correct--She does not
in the popular sense of the word.  The spiritual practices she
teaches are Jnana yoga and Karma yoga.  The first forces one to
think for one's self, and the second forces one to think of
others besides one's self.  Most people I have talked to who are
turned off by Blavatsky had missed the point completely.  Yes,
there are inner group instructions.  If you want them, I will
send them also.  By the way, Are you interested in Rajagopal
Sloss' Biography of Krishnamurti; LIFE IN THE SHADOW?  I have
copies of the British edition in cloth. $25.00.

     O.K., now for commentary on the first 33 pp. of TCF:

Introduction:

     p.vi: TCF is the "major and far reaching portion of the
thirty year teachings..."  Sounds like this is the Magnum Opus--
Bailey's S.D.

     p vii: Description of the psychic relationship between AAB
and the Tibetan.  Nothing of use here--as it is unverifiable.
     2nd para: describes problems with Krotona--more fully
described in her Autobiography.  "...and that the teaching should
go public over her signature" is an interesting turn of phrase,
as it suggests that the teaching pre-existed in a private form.
An allusion to the E.S. instructions perhaps.
     3rd para. "The entire platform upon which esoteric teaching
stands...has been liberated from...mystery, glamour, claim making
and impracticality..." sound here like a description of the E.S.,
who was guilty of all of these things during her time.

     p. viii: Here A.A.B. has removed the book from scholastic
inquiry and criticism, and that its worth is to be judged upon
its results.  How is this to be measured?

     2nd para: Master/chela relationship are changed.  Now there
is group training.  Is this claim verifiable?

     3rd. para: Here is the reference to the prophesy. O.K.,
finally we have something to go on for verification.  But where
is the reference?

     p ix: Author of the statement is unverifiable.  Anyone could
have written it.  This is an interesting change, because H.P.B.'s
Mahatmas didn't publish statements in books.

     2nd para: Here the Tibetan gives no assurance of the
correctness of this book, but leaves the reader to judge the book
by its effect.

Foreword:

     p xii: Says that the book was written to be employed for a
generation.  That means until 1935.  The S.D. was written to be
employed until 2000.

     2nd para etc.: The five purposes of the book show that it
deals primarily with consciousness, but is also a cosmology etc.

     xiii: Fourth purpose is curious: "to give practical
information anent those focal points of energy which are found in
the etheric bodies of the solar Logos..."  Her definition of
"solar Logos" should be interesting.

     xiv: Under things that should be kept in mind: b.: the
slippage of words in conveying ideas is true in all
communication.  Is this to suggest that she is shrugging her
responsibility to communicate?  In other words, if something is
mis-understood, the reader alone is responsible?

     xv: "No book gains anything from the dogmatic claims or
declarations as the authoritative value of its source of
inspiration."  They why have the Tibetan write a statement in
this book?  Why credit it to the Tibetan at all?

Introductory Postulates:

     No comment obviously.  We just have to see what she does
with them.

Stanzas

     These must be her own stanzas, as they are not in the S.D.
Presumably these are supposed to be further stanzas not given in
the S.D.  Is that right?  Well, who is to say they are or not?
For whatever it is worth, they read like parodies to me.  They
remind me of Francia LaDue's stanzas.  But who am I to judge?

     For the next time, I will read to page 68, and make comments
if I have any.  As we get into the book, there should be more of
substance to comment upon.

Jerry S.

     My purpose for raising the conflicting names and definitions
of bodies and planes was to challenge Arvind to wrestle with it.
That is why I was careful not to suggest answers, but rather to
present a puzzle.

     I recall Purucker making a big distinction between bodies
and principles, and this is probably where Eldon is coming form.
I don't remember the arguments off hand, but wasn't disturbed
with them at the time.

     Do you have the reference for Judge saying that bodies and
principles are pretty much the same thing?

     I don't know if it had done me any good to study the mess
either, but I did sometime ago, but historically and
comparatively.  I am satisfied that the mess can be untangled,
and feel that I had done it.  The problem with students that
makes me want to pound my head against the wall, are those who
begin with the assumption that every theosophical writer is using
the same terms in the same ways.  I'm rather an extremist in the
other direction, where I won't even assume that Blavatsky and
Judge are speaking from a united front.

     Re. G.de P's schema: Yes it is curious that he uses the term
"Astral light" here.  It is suggestive of the analogy between the
second plane of the Kosmos and the second plane of the Earth, but
usually the terms are shifted. For example, prana is shifted to
jiva, manas shifts to mahat.  At least in Purucker's schema, it
is still clear where his point of references is--that is he is
building analogically.  So even if "astral light" might have been
a poor choice, at least it is clear in this context what he means
by it.  Leadbeater's principles, on the other hand, become a much
nastier problem.

     We have had many a laugh about Leadbeater's brow snake, but
the pictures are nice to look at.  A third problem often
mentioned by those more knowledgeable than I on these matters is
Leadbeater's addition of the Spleen chakra, which throws off the
whole classical schema.  Personally I have little faith in
Leadbeater's clairvoyance.  Most of his observations are so
outrageous, that it throws a cloud upon what is left that may be
of value.  For instance, what ever happened to that race of
little green Norwegians that inhabit Mars?

Eldon

     When you write of Theosophy in transcendental terms, or
write about unspeakable mysteries, you are, in my definition,
writing mystical material.  Even your phrase "But it is not
mystical to consider Theosophy as true, and to act accordingly"
can be taken at two levels of meanings, depending upon what you
mean by "true."  If "true" is a referent to transcendental truth,
then it is a mystery beyond our knowing.  If "truth" is a
referent to personal truth, then we can talk about it.
Philosophically, Theosophy is part of the Neo-Platonist
tradition, which postulates the existence of a transcendental
truth, so I'm hardly one to deny such an existence.  But for
myself, I try to write what is in my experience to write about.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins