AAB/HPB and TCF
Jan 20, 1994 01:55 PM
by Arvind Kumar
> TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE is available both as a
> separate volume and included in the COLLECTED WRITINGS, Vol. X.
> If you are interested in eventually getting all of the collected
> writings, I recommend that you get Volume X. Then you will have
> the TRANSACTIONS and a lot of her other writings with it. Let me
Yes, I am very interested in getting all volumes of the CW but for
reasons I explained in my last message (i.e. the need to find a
place for them) I have to wait. Also, we are planning a trip to
India during July 94 and may be able to buy the CW in India much
> Frankly, I donot know much about Leadbeater's Etheric
> double, so my answer is based on what I know of Bailey's
> use of the term 'etheric' body. And I have not had the
> time to research fully (in fact there is a blue book on
> 'Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle' which I have not
> referenced so far which may shed some more light on the
> etheric body). Your quote that HPB's "Astral Body" or
> Linga Sharira is "...the inert vehicle or form on which the
> body is moulded; the vehicle of Life. It is dissipated very
> shortly after the disintegration of the body." (S.D.
> This is exactly the definition of the etheric in the Bailey
> books that I have read. Moreover, your definition of HPB's
> "Kama-Rupa" as "...the principle of animal desire, which
> burns fiercely during life in matter, resulting in satiety;
> it is inseparable from animal existence." (S.D. II:593).
> This is exactly the definition of the Astral body in Bailey
> books! I agree with you that there is a lot of difficulty
> involved in establishing a correlation between the various
> terminologies for the vehicles, but I feel quite
> comfortable with Bailey's terminology (but am afraid have
> not gotten used to HPB's terms; in fact I am quite confused
> after Brenda's extensive quotes).
>> If AAB's definitions are exactly the same as H.P.B.'s, then
> >why do you want to match the Astral Body with the Etheric?
> >Please give me the references to AAB's definitions so that I may
> >also make a comparison. I don't understand your last statement.
> >If AAB's definitions are "exactly" the same as HPB's, and you are
> >"comfortable" with AAB's terminology, then why are you having
> >trouble getting "used" to HPB's terminology? This doesn't make
> >sense. If they are the same, then you should be able to go from
> >one to the other without any confusion.
AAB's definitions match exactly HPB's definitions in the two
instances cited by you (i.e. HPB's astral body becomes AAB's
etheric and HPB's Kama Rupa is AAB's Astral body. But beyond
thes two, there are a number of terms that HPB has used for vehicles
that I donot know how to relate to. For example, Linga Shrira,
and a host of other terms I saw in Brenda's message. The following
table appears on p. 74 of The Light of the Soul, which I find
quite easy to relate to:
"The seven principles with which man is concerned are:
1.Prana....... Vital Energy... Etheric Body... Physical Plane
2.Kama ....... Desire,Feeling. Astral Body.... Astral Plane
3.Lower Manas. Concrete Mind.. Mental Body... Mental Plane
4.HigherManas. Abstract Mind.. Egoic Body.... Mental Plane
5.Buddhi...... Intuition...... Buddhic Body... Buddhic Plane
6.Atma........ Spiritual Will. Atmic Body..... Atmic Plane
And that which corresponds to the "boundless immutable principle"
in the macrocosm, the Monad (on its own plane) constitutes the
> You wrote:
> And this brings me to another important point in our
> discussion on AAB-HPB comparison, which I'll try to document
> The Bailey/Blavatsky teachings can be grouped into two
> classes: (a) those that pertain to spiritual practice, and
> (b)those that pertain to areas of the invisible universe
> that we as human beings know very little about in our
> everyday waking life. In reading these books, I look
> primarily for (a), and I venture to say that there is no
> disagreement as regards (a) between HPB and AAB. Regarding
> (b), these must be regarded as 'speculations' by most of us
> until we also become adepts and are able to verify these for
> ourselves. As far as I am concerned, the discussion of the
> various vehicles or bodies falls into the (b) category, and
> I'd like to suggest that we not get hung up on it. Let us
> concentrate on (a) although I have definite interest in
> seeking your clarifications/ comments on teachings of the
> type (b) also.
>> In the (a) category Blavatsky's teachings are the same as
> >those ethical teachings found in every major religion. On the
> >subject of spiritual practice, She gives little elaboration other
> >than what I had outlined earlier, because spiritual instruction
> >can be found anywhere. If anything, she gives warnings about
> >certain practices that people mistake to be spiritual. If there
> >is no disagreement between HPB and AAB concerning spiritual
> >practice, then AAB is saying nothing new, but is repeating easily
> >available information. If AAB has created a particular program
> >of spiritual practice, and is advocating adhesion to it, then she
> >is doing something that HPB did not do, and was not in favor of
> >doing. The closest thing that HPB came to teaching a program
> >spiritual practices was to give individual advice, or in the case
> >of the Inner group, she had house rules, that one might want to
> >classify as "spiritual practices." But even in this case, they
> >were only intended for the members of the household. THE VOICE
> >OF THE SILENCE, though a translation of moral and ethical
> >precepts, is not really a program of spiritual practices.
In my view, AAB has expanded very significantly upon HPB teaching
regarding (a) e.g. witness the compilation from AAB books on
'Serving Humanity'. I rather feel that many of the Bailey books are
a continuation of the last couple of books of HPB i.e. the Key
and The Voice of Silence.
> > Regarding your (b) category as only being speculations--I
> >must disagree. HPB went through a great deal of trouble
> >outlining, documenting, arguing and clarifying these teachings.
> >If AAB offered her writings to " be regarded as 'speculations'
> >by most of us until we also become adepts and are able to verify
> >these for ourselves." Then so be it for her. H.P.B., on the
> >other hand did not do so. HPB explained in the preface of THE
> >KEY TO THEOSOPHY, that the book:
> > Is not a complete or exhaustive textbook of Theosophy, but
> > only a key to unlock the door that leads to deeper study.
> > It traces the broad outlines of the Wisdom Religion, and
> > explains its fundamental principles; meeting at the same
> > time, the various objections raised by the average Western
> > enquirer, and endeavoring to present unfamiliar concepts in
> > a form as simple and in language as clear as possible. That
> > it should succeed in making Theosophy intelligible without
> > mental effort on the part of the reader, would be too much
> > to expect; but it is the hoped that the obscurity still left
> > is of the thought not of the language, is due to depth not
> > to confusion. To the mentally lazy or obtuse, Theosophy
> > must remain a riddle; for in the world mental as in the
> > world spiritual each man must progress by his own efforts.
> > The writer cannot do the reader's thinking for him, nor
> > would the latter be any better off if such vicarious thought
> > were possible. (Key p. xi)
> > Therefore, it is clear that HPB not only thought that
> > Theosophy was understandable to the average reader, but she did
> >everything in her power to make it so. In another article she
> >mentions that *anyone* of average intelligence can understand the
> >theosophical teachings. The whole question of whether they are
> >understood or not depends upon whether the reader is willing to
> >make the necessary mental effort to understand them. My
> >experience is that the vast majority of people whom I have met
> >who have studied theosophy, were either unwilling to make the
> >mental effort, or had become confused by other theosophical
> >writers, whom they had read first in the hopes of understanding
> >Blavatsky without reading her. In the latter case, they usually
> >read the other writers first, because they believed they were
> >easier to read.
> > Among the subjects that HPB covers in the KEY (and therefore
>> believes them to be understandable to the average person) are,
>> the seven principles, reincarnation, after death states, and lots
>> of material pertaining to cosmology. The KEY is also one of her
>> richest sources for commentary on morals and ethicals.
>> In summary then, I am not in favor of your proposal that "we
>> not get hung up on" the teachings and terminology. Blavatsky's
>> theosophical schema is precisely what made her writing unique in
>> the Western World. If AAB's terminology is "exactly" the same as
>> HBP's, as you write; and AAB's writings depend upon the validity
>> of Blavatsky's, as you wrote earlier, then it is of prime
>> importance that this congruency be verified. In fact, it is the
>> one thing that we can most easily verify.
I never said that HPB's terminology is exactly same as AAB's except
for the two correspondences for vehicles discussed above. There may
be differences in terms employed here and there (for example I have
not seen so far terms like Linga Shrira used by AAB; it is possible
that AAB decided to use one set of terms instead of giving their
equivalents in Sanskrit or other religious tradition). I say that
I have not seen anything in HPB's teaching that differs from AAB's
teaching but AAB has expanded significantly the initial teaching
(and added more that perhaps HPB did not touch upon, which makes
sense considering AAB's being the second instalment of occult
teaching, HPB's being first). You tell me what you want to do
next on this.
> You wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. Were you a member of ES
> (otherwise how do you know that there is a close
> resemblance between ES materials and Bailey books?)
> Incidentally, I think that Bailey wrote a lot more than is
> possibly covered by ES, so it must be a small subset of
> perhaps early Bailey books that may contain info originally
> made available thru ES. Have you yourself been in any
> 'esoteric school' at all; are you aware of any other
> esoteric schools other than Arcane School and ES?
> If I were a pledged member of the E.S., I would not have
> been permitted to say as much as I have already. I'm not a
> member of any E.S., and have avoided doing so for my entire
> thirty years in Theosophy. I know what is in the E.S. materials
> because I have read them, therefore, that part of my statement
> was based upon knowledge, not speculation. Yes, I am aware of
> all of the "esoteric schools" in the theosophical movement.
Can I also look at the ES materials that you have seen? What
other Esoteric schhols are in existence at this time? I am very
interested to know.
> For your next long paragraph--I will quote and answer in
> smaller sections:
> I have a couple of points in this regard: (i) I donot think
> that HPB has spoken explicitly about the seven keys
> anywhere; has she?
> Yes she speaks explicitly about the seven keys in the S.D.
> In fact, it is one of the major themes in the book. An extensive
> discussion on the seven keys and their relation to the mystery
> language can be found in vol. I, pp. 310-25. I don't know how she
> could be more explicit on this subject.
I need to check this reference you have quoted; is this for the
facsimile edition (if not, can you give, chapter no. etc.). I
swear that I saw in Bourborka's Divine Plan a statement to the
effect that HPB had not talked about what the seven keys were
(I'll have to give you a ref later).
> It is my opinion that the seven keys just refer to the
> seven levels of meaning attached to SD.
> The seven keys refers to the mystery language found in the
> major religious systems and their mythologies. These seven keys
> are used to "unlock" the layers of meanings in these systems.
> The S.D. is not a religious tradition, but an outline of the
> teachings that underlay these traditions. Therefore the S.D. is
> in another sense "the *key*" itself, not the mystery. The S.D.
> is an occult work, so it does have levels of meaning, but not in
> the same sense as what HPB refers to as the seven levels of
> meaning in the mystery language of the major religions. In other
> words, no. The seven keys *do not* refer to any levels of
> meaning attached to the SD.
> It is said that all of the Bailey books can also be
> interpreted at seven levels. So by 'psychological key'
> Bailey means the interpretation of the SD in the context of
> 'esoteric psychology'.
> In light of my above statement, I will have to reject this,
> unless you are now suggesting that the "psychological key" is
> *not* one of the seven keys; and that TCF is an interpretation of
> the SD in a psychological ~context.~ In this case, the term
> "psychological key" was a very ill chosen term because it invites
> a great deal of confusion with HPBP's use of the term "key." If
> "context" rather than "key" was meant, then a better phrase would
> have been that the TCF is a ~psychological interpretation~ of the
> SD. This would be clearer, but also a much less profound
> statement. The lost reference to HPB's prediction would probably
> give clarification to this.
What I said about 'psychological interpretation' was only my
speculation of what Foster may have meant. I see that
the 'keys' are different from 'levels of meaning'; OK that is
a mistake on my part.
> But the point is that there are seven ways in which the
> archaic SD can be interpreted, Bailey has shown one of
> those ways, at least that is what I understand from Foster's
> HPB gives seven keys. I have already demonstrated that
> "psychological key" is not among them, but it is an important
> references to psychology in ISIS. If Bailey has a system of
> "seven ways" that are different from the seven keys--then that is
> fine with me, but it should be distinguished from HPB's system.
> I asked Sarah McKechnie of Lucis for this, but then
> backed away from asking her to 'research' it for me when she
> made it clear that she did not know where the reference may
> be, if it exists in written format at all. Sarah and her
> colleagues at Lucis Trust are in my opinion modern day
> saints. They get paid paltry salaries but have more than
> enough work cut out for them in terms of publishing Beacon,
> replying AS/Triangles/World Goodwill correspondence etc.
> etc. So that is where that stands! Perhaps you can send a
> query to the BBS that Jerome runs for 7 Ray U and ask him
> for it (otherwise I might give it a shot one day).
> I'm sorry that Sarah McKechnie and her colleagues are so
> busy and are paid so little. But if one of their jobs is to
> furnish information, then I would expect them to do that--
> regardless of their pay. Since you are already known in this
> organization, I prefer that you make the contacts. For
> theosophical information, I'll be happy to make contacts for you.
> Foster Bailey's statement is basic for the purpose of TCF,
> therefore the reference should be basic information to anyone
> making a genuine inquiry into TCF. What other format would HPB's
> prediction be in, if not written?
Seeing that you are so interested in pursuing the Foster Bailey
quote, I'll write to Sarah to look into it if possible. I donot
guarantee any response, certainly they (Lucis Trust personnel)
donot work for you or me; we need to allow them to prioritize the
query we send to them in the light of other work that they do.
> Below I have quoted my comments and your responses, to which
> I have made further responses.
> > p xii: Says that the book was written to be employed for
> > generation. That means until 1935. The S.D. was written to
> > employed until 2000.
> I donot know how you arrived at 1935. What is the number of
> years for a generation? Most of the Bailey material is written
> as a 'second instalment' of esoteric teaching, which is meant
> the period from the time the books were written, up until early
> 21st century.
> The quote I'm referring to on p xii is:
> This "Treatise on Cosmic Fire" has a fivefold purpose in
> view: First, to provide a compact and skeleton outline of a
> scheme of cosmology, philosophy, and psychology which may
> perhaps be employed for a generation as a reference and a
> textbook, and may serve as a scaffolding upon which more
> detailed instruction may later be built, as the great tide
> of evolutionary teaching flows in.
> Generation, depending upon context is 10, 20 or 30 years. I
> was counting form the publication date of 1925, added ten years
> and got 1935. Even going for the more accepted definition of 30
> years, the quote still suggests that TCF was to be "employed"
> until 1955. Presumably, according to my reading of this quote,
> "more detailed instruction" would appear, built upon the
> foregoing book. Anyway, this quote appears to contradict the
> idea that TCF was intended for the 21st century.
The Masters can make mistakes; the Tibetan has stated that
predictions are very hard and rather unwise to make, many times
they depend on the response of Humanity to the 'impulse' given.
> > 2nd para etc.: The five purposes of the book show that it
> > deals primarily with consciousness, but is also a cosmology
> > xiii: Fourth purpose is curious: "to give practical
> > information anent those focal points of energy which are found
> > the etheric bodies of the solar Logos..." Her definition of
> > "solar Logos" should be interesting.
> AAB's use of 'Solar Logos' refers to the stupendous Being
> in whom all that 'lives and moves and has its being in our
> Solar System' resides, so the body of the Solar Logos contains
> the Planetary Logos in it; in fact the seven 'sacred planets' I
> believe are the Seven Chakras in the body of this great Being.
> References please. What does the earth represent? As it is
> not one of the "seven sacred planets."
There is a lot to read about the Solar Logos in TCF itself; look
at the Index at the back. Perhaps we will find something
about the earth (Planetary Logos, the One in 'whom we
live and move and have our being' who in turn is part
of the body of the Solar Logos) as well in TCF.
> > 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
> > mis-understood, the reader alone is responsible?
> You are playing on her words my friend! AAB has indicated again
> and again that it is extremely difficult to put into the English
> language (in any language but esp. the English language) that
> which can only be seen or experienced on other planes.
> I believe that I am the best judge of the intent and meaning
> of what I write. I was not "playing with words," and I noted
> AAB's indication of her difficulty in putting her teachings into
> English. Reading "b" in context with "a" and "c" suggests in my
> mind that she is leaving it to the reader to ascertain her
> meaning even though the language in inadequate to communicate it.
> I bring this up, because of HPB's contrasting statement in the
> KEY (quoted above), suggesting that the English language (with
> the borrowing and translating certain foreign terms) was adequate
> for HPB to get across her meaning.
I have read the same statement as in the AAB book perhaps in SD or
somewhere. Do you not subscribe to the idea that it may be
difficult to express what cannot be perceived by the five senses
in the every day language? AAB's 'own' books are written for the
'average aspirant' and there she does not make this statement. The
more arcane teaching, it is my belief, is likely to be difficult
to put into words.
> > 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?
> Credit had to be given to the Tibetan because there is no way
> that AAB herself could have known the material covered in this
> book. The whole book is based on Tibetan's teaching; the
> extract just sets the stage and is very relevant in my opinion.
> This may be just so, but don't you also see that the
> Tibetan's statement also endorses the claim that the book comes
> from an authoritative source? Thus, the acceptance of the
> Tibetan as being behind the book, gives it special authority.
Perhaps it does. What would you do if you were incharge of
putting together such a diffult book and wanted to reach as
many as possible? I hope I have included in my previous message
a reference in the Key where HPB says the same thing, that SD
is based on teaching given by the Masters (let me know if you want
me to give the ref. for it to you).
> Who is Francis LaDue? It is true that the stanzas are difficult
> to understand at first glance. Will you not say the same of the
> stanzas in HPB's SD, were it not for the commentary? All I know
> is that persons who meditate on these stanzas seem to find
> meaning in them (in a manner similar to what is in Mr.
> Lansdowne's book mentioned before).
> Francia LaDue was the head of the Temple of the People. The
> Stanzas were also "dictated" to her.
> I have studied the S.D. for so many years that I'm able to
> interpret and discuss the stanzas without referring to the
> commentaries. This means that I have internalized the usages and
> meaning of the terms and the style in which they are written.
> Therefore, theoretically, I should be able to read any new
> stanzas, provided that are translated in the same way, and
> recognize a consistency of usage and style, and should also be
> able to deduce a great deal of meaning without reference to any
> commentaries. I'm saying that based upon my first reading, and
> upon my experience, I don't get the impression that stanzas ring
> true. Perhaps, on a closer reading, I may change my mind.
There, you said it yourself...a closer reading/meditation is
required even to understand ordinary material in AAB books, what to
speak of the stanzas!
> That's it for now
> Jerry Hejka-Ekins
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application