Theos-Talk Archives (January 1994 Message tl00149)

Arvind

     As I read your message of Fri., Jan. 28th, it has become
obvious that we have a couple of basic terms and ideas that are
yet to be clarified--particularly issues concerning the "Seven
Keys" and the E.S. Instructions. Below are your responses and my
responses to them, where I will try to make these clarifications
as they come up.

> 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"
>>  (II 595).

> 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).

     I need to point out here some basic distinctions H.P.B.
made:  First, H.P.B. in her introductory chapters makes a
distinction between "the Secret Doctrine" and "~The Secret
Doctrine~. The former is the collectivity of the teachings that
we call the Wisdom Science, Ancient Wisdom or Theosophy. Traces
of these teachings are imbedded in the worlds religions and
mythologies, and can be decoded through the application of the
Seven Keys:

     But it is perhaps desirable to state unequivocally that the
     teachings, however fragmentary and incomplete, contained in
     these volumes [i.e. ~The Secret Doctrine~], belong neither
     to the Hindu, the Zoroastrian, the Chaldean, nor the
     Egyptian religion, neither to Buddhism, Islam, Judaism nor
     Christianity exclusively. The Secret Doctrine [note here
     this is not in italics. She is *not* referring to her book.]
     is the essence of all these. Sprung from it in their
     origins, the various religious schemes are now made to merge
     back into their original element, out of which every mystery
     and dogma has grown, developed, and become materialized (SD
     I viii. Insertions in square brackets are mine).

     The latter term is the name of her Book--~The Secret
Doctrine.~  It is a Philosophical work, written (among other
reasons) to give the keys needed to recognize and interpret the
Wisdom Religion found in the World religions and Mythologies.
Those keys are what she refers to as "The Seven Keys."

     Recent discoveries made by great mathematicians and
     Kabalists thus prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that every
     theology, from the earliest and oldest down to the latest,
     has sprung not only from a common source of abstract
     beliefs, but from one esoteric, or "Mystery" language....The
     great archaic system known from prehistoric ages as the
     sacred Wisdom Science, one that is contained and can be
     traced in every old as well as in every new religion, had,
     and still has, its universal language--suspected by the
     Mason Ragon--the language of the Hierophants, which has
     seven "dialects," so to speak, each referring, and being
     specially appropriated, to one of the seven mysteries of
     Nature (SD I 310).

     Therefore the seven keys are the keys to the "mystery
language" or the "Secret Doctrine" found in every religion etc.
It is not the key to ~The Secret Doctrine~ which is only a
philosophical work that *gives* these seven keys, and examples of
their use. Therefore TCF cannot be the Theogonic Key to ~The
Secret Doctrine~ because the keys don't apply to ~The Secret
Doctrine,~  they apply to the Secret Doctrine.

     Thus, if AAB is saying that TCF is the "psychological key"
to ~The Secret Doctrine,~ then, in light of the above, two
possibilities of her meaning come to mind: 1. She doesn't know
what she is talking about. 2. She is not referring to the seven
keys at all, but is really saying that TCF is an interpretation
of ~The Secret Doctrine~ from a psychological context. I already
discussed this alternative in my Jan 18th message to you, and
unless you have another possibility in mind, this seems to be the
most feasible. But if TCF is only a psychological commentary,
then this is much less profound then what most readers assume she
means. As I had mentioned in my Jan. 18th message, the text of
HPB's "prediction" would probably clarify things. A third
possibility comes to mind, that the statement was a misprint in
AAB's books that nobody ever bothered to change, and that she was
not referring to ~The Secret Doctrine,~ at all, but that TCF is
the psychological key to the Secret Doctrine. The only problem
with this alternative, is that HPB does not have a "psychological
key."

     Your suggestion that the Psychological Key is AAB's term for
the Theogonic Key is inconsistent with the information we have.
The term "psychological key" is supposed to have been taken from
a "prediction" made by HPB; therefore it was HPB's term, and AAB
is presumably using HPB's meaning. Since we can't find the
"prediction," we can't verify what HPB meant (let alone verify
the existence of the prediction). If the two terms are
synonymous, then why is this yet to be found "prediction" the
only instance in all of HPB's twenty volumes of writings, where
she uses the term "psychology" in this way?

> 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 HPB:
> 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.

     Purucker's "books" are really transcriptions of his
lectures. I think it is important to make this distinction.
Purucker does explain a lot of HPB's teachings in both her public
and E.S. writings. He also provides a *lot* of new material, not
specifically found in HPB's writings. Whether or not these new
teachings are genuine, of course is a matter of opinion.
Speaking in broad terms, the most notable "new teachings" of
Purucker concerns the twelve-fold planetary globe system; the
initiation cycle; and Avatars. Another thing worth noting about
Purucker, is that his use of terms are almost completely
consistent with HPB's usages. There are exceptions to this,
where he will expand upon HPB's definition, or put it into
another light. But he does not throw away HPB's terms in favor
of his own or someone else's. Besant and Leadbeater did throw
away many of HPB's terms in favor of their own, and has caused
endless confusion among readers who try to make Besant and
Leadbeater jive with Blavatsky.

> 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'll do that.

> 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!

     The "worst case scenario" that I can think of is that our
investigations end up deconstructing both AAB and HPB, leaving
their teachings in smoking ruin. Since HPB stressed that her
students seek after truth, rather than her teachings, I don't
think HPB would mind at all if we succeeded in doing this. For
us to accomplish such a thing implies that our understanding will
have gone well beyond HPB and AAB's. Then we can write our own
books. How do you feel about that?

>> 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 anyway.

> 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 that AAB indeed mentioned the names of her
teachers (at least one or two), who were HPB's "personal"
students. But they were E.S. members, not members of HPB's inner
group. Therefore they were "personal students" only through the
mail. During those years (1915-20), the only inner group member
for which there is any real possibility that she could have met
and studied under was Annie Besant--and I find it very unlikely
that AAB forgot her name-even after 30 years. It is also very
unlikely that Besant took on personal students, as we would know
about them.

> 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.

     I think a clarification is in order here. By E.S.
materials, I was not referring to HPB's, but to Besant and
Leadbeater's E.S. material. This material is entirely different
from HPB's.

> 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!

     The Catalogue is still in production. It will be a while
yet.

If you don't hear from me right away next week, it is because I'm
finishing up Winter semester, where I have to turn in another
paper.

That's it for now.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins