AAB/HPB - Quick Response
Jan 21, 1994 02:53 PM
by Arvind Kumar
Jerry H-E, hi,
> 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.
I certainly hope to learn as much as possible by
continuing the dialog with Mr. Weeks.
> the one starting with " You say that they accept and believe
> in the doctrine of Theosophy. But as they donot 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.
I'd like to come back to this and quote parts of the 'Extract from
a statement by the Tibetan'; I donot have time just now but
perhaps early next week I'll get back to it.
> 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.
Reading TCF is indeed a different experience than reading the Key. But
other books, say The problems of Humanity, Education in the New Age,
Letters on Occult Meditation appear very much amplifications of
certain parts of HPB's works. I'd say that the Key appeared to me
to be a summary of material that I had already seen in much more
expanded form in the Bailey books. Perhaps one day we will look into
this in more detail.
> > 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.
OK, let me have a copy of this book; thanks.
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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 can perhaps later on next week quote some references for these
vehicles in AAB books, if that will help.
> 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.
> 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.
I'll look at the SD ref. over the weekend. In Barborka's preface
to the Divine Plan on p. xv appears this (last para): "..Since the
Seven Keys were not provided in the volumes, the writer submits that
he has attempted to present a guide-book towards their understanding,
expressly for those who wish to read and study these ancient
> 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
> 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.
> > was counting form the publication date of 1925, added ten
> > and got 1935. Even going for the more accepted definition of
> > years, the quote still suggests that TCF was to be "employed"
> > until 1955. Presumably, according to my reading of this
> > "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."
I really should spend some time explaining this, next week.
> I have read the same statement as in the AAB book perhaps in SD
> 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
> 'average aspirant' and there she does not make this statement.
> more arcane teaching, it is my belief, is likely to be
> to put into words.
> Let me know if you find where you read it.
OK, will try and locate it.
Best wishes, have a great weekend,
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application