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


Jan 21, 1994 01:58 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins


     Greetings. This is just a quick response to your last two
messages. I have copied your quotes and answered them as before:

 >As far as Mr. Weeks goes, I rarely communicate with him. He
 > is my expert resource when I have questions concerning Buddhism,
 > and usually contact him when I have questions in that area. If he
 > is taking a position based upon some principle, then I would be
 > reluctant to try to dissuade him to another.

 I have to be honest with you; I had never heard of him before I
 joined theos-l. He claims to have been in AS for 15 years (and
 then left it, should I say in 'disappointment'). His wife Dara
 Eklund (right?) seems to be much more well-known and I had heard
 her name before.

     I can vouch that Nicholas Weeks was a member of the AS when
I first met him almost 15 years ago. His wife, Dara Eklund, was
one of Boris de Zirkoff's assistants, and is the successor editor
of the Blavatsky Collected Writings. She has been a theosophist
all of her life, and had grown up in the ULT. When they married,
Nicholas worked with her on the preparation of the Blavatsky and
the Judge Collected Writings, so he was exposed to a tremendous
amount of new (for him) material. From the study of that
material, he came to certain conclusions that caused him to
reject the AS. I never discussed with him in any depth as to his
reasons or rationale for making the change. For that, you would
have to communicate with him directly. I can say though, that I
consider Nicholas to be a far more intellectually honest person
than 99.9% of the people I know. The fact that he was able
through study to make such a major change in his thinking, is to
my mind, evidence of this, and most admirable and rare. Please
don't get any wrong impressions regarding that I don't
communicate with him very often. I admire Nicholas deeply and
believe him to be a person of great spiritual depth. I also
value his friendship. But as theosophical workers, we are all
very busy, and we live far from each other.

The following long quote is broken into parts and answered as

 >      Another thing that caught my eye is that you made a
 > statement paraphrasing HPB in the KEY saying "believe in the
 > teaching of the Mahatmas as a first step in order to make further
 > progress." I've never seen anything like this statement in the
 > KEY, and I have been through the book many times over the years,
 > and have used it as a textbook. Can you give a reference? If
 > this is in the Key, then I will not only have to completely re-
 > evaluate and reconstruct my entire understanding of theosophy,
 > but will have to look at the AS from an entirely different light.

 OK, I have some references for you. I have the simplified Adyar
 edition of the Key (by Clara Codd) so my page numbers may not
 match your edition but at least the 'questions' should be the

     I have a copy here to follow you with. But I hope you get a
decent copy of this important book someday.
 Ch II Q 6 p.11 "But why could not a man of well-balanced mind.."

 The answer : "....He who has not an Initiate for a Master had
 leave the dangerous study alone..."

     According to my reading, she is saying that if you are not
an Initiate or Master you are better off not prying into the
secrets or Alchemy or medieval Theosophy. I see noting about
believing in the Masters as a first step in order to make further
 Ch II Q 7 and 8 p.13 "Are we to understand that the inner group
 of the TS claims to learn what it does from the real

 Read the entire answer to this question and the first part of
 answer to the next Q. " ...The personal presence of such Masters

 is not required. Suffice it if They give instructions to some
 of those who have studied under Their guidance for years...Then,

 in turn, these can give out the knowledge required to others,
 who had no such opportunity..."

     Nothing in the first answer. In fact she is saying that the
personal presence of the Masters is *not* required. In the
second answer, she is speaking of Saccas, Plotinus and
Iamblichus. These are some of the great sages of the first
millennium--thus they don't apply to your statement about "as a
first step."
 Ch XI towards the last one third of the chapter, read the
 questions starting with "You speak of the Adepts as being
 an exception to the rule of our general ignorance..."

     Nothing here referring to your point. All I see is a
description of the spiritual development and methods of Adepts.
 Read  the one starting with " You say that they accept and
 believe in the doctrine of Theosophy. But as they do not belong
 to these Adepts you have just mentioned, then they must accept
 your teachings on "blind faith"..." These answers appear to me
 to be the same as given by Bailey.

     Nothing here pertaining to your paraphrased statment here
either. But I have ranted and raved on this blind and reasoned
faith issue myself several times on this net. I don't know what
you are referring to in Baileys' writings, so I can't agree or
disagree with you on this. But if your above paraphrase is a
Bailey teaching, then I maintain that I have seen nothing like it
in the KEY.
 To tell you the truth, when I read the Key (only a few days
 ago for the first time), I thought I was reading one of
 the Bailey books. The teaching on education, on vegetarianism
 (surprise: HPB advises you to be a vegetarian if possible at
 all!!! - read Ch XIII Q 7 etc.), on selfless service - there is
 no difference at all between AAB and HPB on these and other
 matters discussed in the Key.

     So far, I haven't had the same experience as you. So far, I
have never for a second thought that I was reading Blavatsky,
while reading TCF--but we'll see.
 >      On the Krishnamurti book: what I like about it is that it
 > was written by Rajagopal's daughter, who grew up with him.
 > Therefore she is able to give a very human and inside view of
 > what he was about.

 I had heard about this book; I think it is one of those
 controversial books which claims that K had intimate relations
 with the author's mother, and K had a number of personality
 failures. Does the book have anything positive to say about
 K or K's teachings? I am afraid that it may be "too much
 gossip" or idle speculation. Please say more, if possible,
 esp. the positives.

     The book was written by a human being about a person she
regarded as a human being. As a historian I'm interested in
first person accounts and documented events. This book falls
into that category. It is not about "gossip or idle
speculations." I have no interest in those books either. The
book is positive or negative depending upon what the reader
brings to the book in terms of beliefs.
 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 do not 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  seventh principle.

     I would have to see references in AAB to make my own
comparison of definitions. As for the above table, the first
column is somewhat consistent with the KEY, except that it is
missing two principles. It also splits manas yet still includes
kama--which doesn't make sense because "lower manas" is the same
as "kama-manas." I question the use of the term "abstract mind"
with higher manas, and would want to see a further explanation of
what she means by that. Same for the term "Egoic Body." The
term "Atmic Body" is an oxymoron, because Atma is arupic i.e.
formless. To have an "Atmic Body" suggests the existence of
Atmic matter. Her equation of Prana with Etheric Body is just
plain wrong.
 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.

     Until we have gone through AAB's definitions so that I can
make a comparison, I'm not willing to assume that the definitions
are or are not the same. In fact, the table you gave above is
evidence that they are not. I appreciate the fact that you have
concluded that they are, but I have to find out for myself.
That AAB's writings are the "second instalment" of occult
teaching, is also another assumption I'm not willing to make.
There are many writers who make the same claim.
 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.

     This is one of the things that I'm investigating.
 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.

     They are not available at this time, but I have heard that
Radha may "declassify" them in the near future. It is unlikely
that even presently day E.S. members (except for the very very
long time members) have even seen them. At this time all but the
Pasadena Theosophical Society still has an "ES."

 >      I have a couple of points in this regard: (i) I do not
 >      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).

     Yes, this is for the Facsimile edition. You probably saw in
Barborka a statement to the effect that she doesn't make a list
of the seven keys. This is a very different statement than what
you asked e.g. "I donot think that HPB has spoken explicitly
about the seven keys anywhere." To your original question--yes
she does speak explicitly of them. She also names the seven keys
are and gives examples of their use. But no, she doesn't make a
list like she does with the principles. But I can give you a
whole list of things that she doesn't give lists of, and like the
seven keys, they are all major themes in the SD. The seven
principles where not part of a major theme, so they were listed.
This has to do with the way the book is written, and doesn't mean
that she was with holding anything back on this issue.


 Seeing that you are so interested in pursuing the Foster Bailey
 quote, I'll write to Sarah to look into it if possible. I do not
 guarantee any response, certainly they (Lucis Trust personnel)
 do not 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.

     Thanks. I realize it is an insignificant point to you, but
from my point of view, it is a major issue and will clarify a

 >      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.

     This is an interesting "mistake."
 >   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.

     Well get to it soon enough. I would rather not start
searching a book I haven't read from cover to cover first. It
creates context problems. People make those kind of mistakes
with the SD all of the time, because they never really read it.
 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.

     Let me know if you find where you read it.

 >  >      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).

     If I were incharge, I would slant the material towards the
educated segment of Society and use a scholastic format as HPB
did. If the work is academically accepted, then the work will
"trickle down" to the rest of society, as other great works have
done. Yes HPB says that she gives out teachings that she had
been *taught* (p vii). But where is the Master's statement in
the SD? My point is that the very presence of DK's statement in
TCF gives a spiritual authority that was never claimed for the

 >      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!

     We'll see.
     I'll try to send this to roots, but I think John missed
putting in "char" in his instructions. I'll try it with "char."

Take care

Jerry Hejka-Ekins

[Back to Top]

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