Theos-Talk Archives (January 1994 Message tl00154)

Sarah

> In your Jan. 25th response to me, it appears that
> you have slightly misunderstood my comment about
> "plans" of the Mahatmas. I did not mean to say that
> H.P.B. related her mention of the esoteric Sept.
> date to previous "plans" of the Mahatmas. No, what
> I was referring to are passages that can be found
> in THE MAHATMA LETTERS, which infer that the Society
> was very much in the "plan" or "mind" of those for
> whom H.P.B. was in "service".
>
>    Example, page 24:
>
>    "The Chiefs want a "Brotherhood of Humanity," a
>    real Universal Fraternity started; an institution
>    which would make itself known throughout the world
>    and arrest the attention of the highest minds."
>
> Although this letter is dated 1880, after the inaugura-
> tion of the T.S. in 1875, still it would seem strange
> that the "desires" of the Chiefs are being drawn from
> the "plans" of Col. O. or H.P.B..

     I think I understood your comment well enough. Though your
mention of the word "plans" did not evoke this passage from the
Mahatma Letters, an entry from H.P.B.'s diary did cross my mind:

     M brings orders to form a Society--a secret Society like the
     Rosicrucian Lodge. He promises to help (B:CW I:73).

     Though this is not the same quote, I think we are one the
same track.

     Your interpretation of my interpretation is rather
interesting however. I never thought about the idea that the
`desires' of the "chiefs" might be "drawn from the `plans' of
Col. O. or H.P.B."  But now that you mention it, there may be a
grain of truth in this.


> Also Jerry, would you mind posting the reference where
> H.P.B speaks of the Sept. date as esoteric, and the Nov.
> as exoteric. As well, if you include the exact date and
> time of day of the September nomination, we can get
> under way with a reading.

     I'll have to some looking, and will get back to you on this.
It has been a few years since I have done astrological related
research, and my notes are deeply buried--probably even still
packed. But for now here are some reliable dates to
work with:

September 7th, 1875. Olcott first broaches the subject of forming
a Society.

September 8, 1875: Olcott given formal conception to his proposal
"that a Society be formed for the study and elucidation of
Occultism, the Cabala & c, the ladies and gentlemen then and
there present resolved themselves into a meeting and, upon motion
of Mr. W.Q. Judge it was Resolved, that Col. H.S. Olcott take the
chair."  It was also resolved that a constitution and by laws be
drafted.

September 13, 1875: (Olcott wrongly gives the date of Sept. 18th
in ODL, p. 126). The society was named "The Theosophical
Society."

October 30th: the bylaws were adopted.

November 17th: Inaugural address.

     I may have some recorded times in my files, but can't find
them right off. I also have somewhere, copies of horoscopes with
the September date, that I will try to find.

Eldon

> When I was originally doing a quick lookup of the Keys to the
> SD, I misread "metrology" as "meterology", and confused it with
> the  study of the weather etc. I came across a definition of
> "metrology" in an older dictionary:

>     1816 - A study of measure, a system of weights and
> measures.

     Yes, I caught the misreading and corrected it for you in a
message to Brenda about 5 weeks ago. I also made reference to
the same definition you have given here, but I found it in a
modern dictionary.

> There are different meanings of the term *key*. There are keys
> that unlock doors, and allow entry into places that one is
> otherwise denied access to.

> There is also the key to a map, an explanation of the symbols
> used on the map, so that one is emabled to read it. In this
> sense, we might be told that a dark-red line, for instance, is
> a major freeway, and a dotted black line is a dirt road. In
> this second sense, there is no mystery, no attempt to conceal
> anything, but rather a definition of the special terminology
> used.

> A third use of *key* is to indicate a core or central concept,
> the essential part, the heart of the matter. This use is taken
> when we hear phrases like "the key or pivotal doctrine is".

     In reference to the "seven keys" I think H.P.B. was quite
consistent in her meaning and gave definitions by example--one of
the three ways Aristotle noted that definitions can be given.

> I was talking to Emmett Small recently, and he mentioned that
> *The Esoteric Tradition* by Purucker was almost entirely
> written by Purucker, and not from talks, and that Purucker
> considered it his best book. I glanced at the book and the
> style of the material is the same as the other books. It is not
> filled with footnotes and citations, but follows the same style
> as his other books.

     I talked to Emmett and Ken about this some years ago, and
questioned them rather closely. The story is, as I remember it,
was that THE ESOTERIC TRADITION was supposed to be Purucker's
continuation of THE SECRET DOCTRINE in much the same sense that
AAB claims for TCF. He took transcripts of talks, organized and
edited through them--so in a manner of speaking, he did "write"
this book. Since you see Emmett more often than I do, you might
question him a little more closely for clarification. However,
if it turns out that I'm wrong on this one, and he did write this
book from scratch--without using transcripts from his talks, then
I'm personally very disappointed in Purucker's lack of
scholarship.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins