Jan 28, 1994 12:36 PM
by Arvind Kumar
More and more it appears to me that this discussion
has become one of the most important things for me;
lately it appears that not a day has gone by that I
have not posted a message to you or at least done some
work in connection with this discussion. Yes, I am
learning a lot through this process as well.
I started writing this message on 1/26 and got interrupted.
Let me start today (1/27) by suggesting that the Theogenic
key seems like it may fit what is contained in the
TCF; we can perhaps form a better opinion as we get into
the study of TCF some more. I am quoting from your message:
[Referring to the Theogonic key applied to Genesis]: "This
key explains that Noah, the deluge-Patriarch, is in one
aspect the permutation of the Deity (the Universal Creative
Law), for the purpose of the formation of our Earth, its
population, and the propagation of life on it, in general"
Considering that TCF deals with the Logoi (Planetary Logos, Solar
Logos etc) I think it may very well be that the TCF provides the
'theogonic key' to SD. There could be several reasons that AAB
would call it the 'psychological' key (psychology of course
referring to the science of the soul) instead of theogonic
or mystical key. We have already seen that the nomenclature
for the various vehicles of man used by HPB and AAB does not
match for whatever reasons (more later).
Again on 1/28. Today I definitely want to get this message back
to you...I have been busy going thru the books that you have sent
me. Parucker's book of ES instructions is quite wonderful (it
will take me a few weeks to go through it fully), but I seem to be
coming around to the following opinion about the successors of
Parucker did a wonderful job in explaining further and clearly HPB's
teachings (I already had his 'foutainhead of Occultism'...I donot
know if the title is exactly the way I have written) but the Bailey
books take a 'quantum leap' in providing much more information,
which is along the lines of what HPB started to give out but yet not
contained in HPB books. In other words, I get the feeling that
Parucker (and several others perhaps) explained HPB's teachings
more clearly whereas AAB provided a whole lot of new material,
while 'building on the foundation of what HPB had provided'. As
you have read perhaps all of Parucker's writings, perhaps you can
comment on what 'new' info Parucker brought out that is not
contained in HPB writings. Please keep in mind that I am in
any case not minimizing the importance of Parucker, nor Bailey;
I am merely pointing out that they both seem to have provided
valuable work along different directions.
Now, let me see how much more I can comment before I get interrupted!
Let me wish you all the best for the weekend from here now
(while I still can; pl see more 'stuff' below).
> THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY was originally founded in 1985 by
> Leslie Price in London. Dr. Santucci took over the Journal in
> 1990, and is published in Fullerton Calif. The booklet on Senzar
> was published when the Journal was still in London. (That is
> also why the booklet is so expensive.) So to answer your
> question, it is the same Journal, but is now Published in
> California. You can subscribe to the address in the Journal I
> sent you.
> That is the only journal of its kind. There is another
> Journal of a similar format dedicated to the Baha'i Religion, but
> that may not interest you. There are lots of Theosophical
> Journals, each with different slants. Some that I subscribe to
> that you may not have heard of are: ECLECTIC THEOSOPHIST (Point
> Loma Tradition, Independent), CANADIAN THEOSOPHIST (Canadian
> Section Magazine. Present Editor is into Bailey), THEOSOPHY
> (U.L.T., Los Angeles), THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (U.L.T. Bombay),
> HIGH COUNTRY THEOSOPHIST (Boulder Co., Independent). There is
> also SUNRISE (Pasadena Theosophical Society).
Thanks for this info. One day (hopefully in this life)
it seems that I will be doing nothing but 'study, meditation
and service' and then perhaps I will have the time to read all
the stuff that is being published. In the meantime, I am going
to subscribe to JTH, and if it is not too inconvenient for
you, depend on you to 'flag' me whenever there is an article of
interest in these other journals. I hope to do the same for you,
if you are interested. I also subscribe to 'Esoteric Healing'
published by a group in England. I have come across some of
the best reading material in the Beacon (not always based on
Bailey or HPB) and if you are currently not subscribed to it, I
will plan on sending you anything that I see in it that may
appear to be of interest to you.
> Your use of the phrases "...telling the truth" and "wanted
> to plagiarize" suggests to me that you are responding to
> accusations that I never made or even intimated. Frankly, it
> never crossed my mind that AAB was lying, or that she had any
> intention to plagiarize anything. I'm only comparing her
> statements with what I know. If her statements don't jive, there
> can be lots of reasons why. I haven't suggested any reasons
> because I'm still interpreting the data, and I'm not ready to
> form conclusions. On the other hand, your statements in almost
> every message saying; that you are convinced that AAB and HPB are
> in perfect agreement; that AAB is HPB's successor; that AAB's
> writings go beyond HPB's; that AAB was in direct contact with the
> person that HPB knew as DK etc. are all conclusions that I am not
> prepared to come to, based upon the evidence seen so far. As I
> have stated before, this is an investigation to compare the
> writings of these two people. An investigation like this has to
> be done with a certain amount of neutrality--so I urge you to put
> aside what you are "absolutely convinced" to be true, so that we
> can examine evidence that addresses these very issues in a fair
This is agreeable to me! I have a tendency to (a) get to the bottom
of things, particularly to take the worst case scenario whenever
something new is presented to me, instead of taking the various
'shades of gray' or other scenarios (that you have pointed out),
(b) to defend what I believe in, whenever there is even a 'hint' of
criticism of it! I am aware that I need to 'detach' myself from
the 'teaching' and the books, thanks for reminding me. So let
us take our 'flashlights' out and start investigating with
dispassion and detachment, focussing them on TCF to begin with!
> Now to clarify and to answer your above questions: Yes, I'm
> in a position to "say a lot of things" that you cannot--but that
> doesn't mean that I have concluded that AAB is lying. I'm only
> comparing statements to documents. If they don't match, there
> could be many reasons why. We just have to wait and see what
> kind of pattern arises. You say that you have to assume that
> AAB's Autobiography is telling the truth. I believe that I have
> stated before that I take her statements on "face value," then
> look into them. Is this an unfair way to proceed?
This is the only fair way.
> As far as HPB goes; both she and Olcott kept diaries. We
> have volumes of her letters; we have Olcott's letters; we have
> the day to day records of the Society; we have memoirs of people
> who personally knew HPB etc. The amount of documentation we have
> on HPB's activities between 1875 and 1891 is so overwhelming,
> that we can almost trace her life day by day. So to answer your
> question, yes it is *possible* " that there were people that HPB
> taught at various places who have not been 'captured' in the
> various records." But it is not *probable*. The only recorded
> time that we have where HPB formally taught was for an eight
> month period in 1890 until her death. She had twelve students,
> and we know the names of them all: Annie Besant; G,R,S, Mead;
> Alice L. Cleather; Isabel Cooper-Oakley; Laura Cooper; Emily
> Kislingbury; Countess Wachtmeister; Herbert A.W. Coryn, Archibald
> Keightley; Walter Old; E.T. Sturdy and Claude Falls Wright.
> These are the only people who could rightly be called HPB's
> "personal students." My theory (for the moment) is that the
> people AAB referred to as "HPB's students" were merely members of
> the E.S. during her (HPB's) life time. Because these people
> received teachings (through the mail) not given to the general
> membership, I suspect that in her view, they were HPB's
> "students." It would be quite normal for these people to have
> copies of E.S. instructions. If Miss Jacobs was the head of a
> section, it would not be unusual that she would have photographic
> plates of the Masters. Or new plates can be made from copies
Yes, what you are saying sounds plausible. A reason that AAB has
not given the names of the 'personal students of HPB' could be
the duration of 30 years that may have passed between when AAB
got the help from HPB's students (1915-20??) and when she wrote
her autobiography (1945-50??) I donot recall the names of my
primary school teachers (even though I learned a lot from them
30 years ago).
> My point is precisely that I am not making a distinction. If
> Prater gave her his E.S. materials, that were the same as the
> originals that she saw at the E.S., then--so what? It only shows
> that he was one of the early E.S. members, who instead of
> returning his materials to the successor, gave them to AAB. If
> that means that he did so because he believed AAB to be HPB's
> successor, then "so what" again. Prater's status as an E.S.
> member doesn't make him special. It only means that he was
> around to sign up between 1888 and 1891. No one was refused.
> Prater could have been the most brilliant student alive, or he
> could have been a dodo. We don't know, and his membership in the
> E.S. doesn't tell us anything. By the way, the proper person
> Prater would have given the E.S. materials to in 1921, would have
> been Annie Besant. Judge died in 1895. Therefore if Prater
> thought AAB was a "better successor," the comparison would have
> been to Besant--not Judge. Considering the torrent of
> controversy going on in those days over Besant's decisions,
> Prater would have had a lot of company in rejecting Besant.
> Therefore, AAB's alusion to the U.L.T., I would say, was in
> reference to the succession issue she would have heard so much
> about at Krotona. It has nothing to do with Judge being the
> rightful owner of Prater's E.S. papers, because Judge was already
> long dead. As for "plagiarism," what does that have to do with
It is great to be participating in these discussions with you,
every message from you sheds more light where there was darkness
before for me! I was shocked to hear from you sometime ago when
you first mentioned that AAB might have used the ES materials in her
writings and I equated that with 'plagiarism' but after the subsequent
discussion and upon finding the reference in the autobiography,
I understand why she did what she did.
> > Can you give me (whenever you get a chance) the references
> > equivalent to those given in TCF for my version of SD
> > corresponding to those that appear in the beginning of TCF
> > related to the three fires?
> As soon as I find it. It is in my pamphlet file which I
> have been cataloging onto the computer. So far I'm only up to
> "H," and I don't remember under what this was filed.
Before I forget, you also need to mail me your catalog on health
and healing; a few friends of mine here have been asking for it!
> Don't worry about it. I'll have to slow way down in a few
> weeks anyway. Then you will probably be "racing" ahead of me.
I plan to do some reading of TCF over the weekend to catch up with
what you have already covered! Hope to write to you again early
next week (replying to another one of your previous messages).
> The INNER GROUP TEACHINGS arrived today. I will be sending
> it and the Sloss book out tomorrow. Did you look at Purucker's
> E.S. material yet? I'm very interested in hearing your reaction.
I will give you a detailed analysis when I finish the book but my
first impression is very positive.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application