Theos-Talk Archives (January 1994 Message tl00155)

Jerry H-E,

In response to your last message, let me propose that we call the
'objective' Secret Doctrine as SD and HPB's writing of the same
title as "HPB's SD". I am guilty of having used the abbreviation
SD to refer to both in the past and it is likley that we'll be
using these for a long time to come, hence the need for you to
either concur with what I propose or let me know what you are
comfortable with and we can use that.

I was indeed suggesting that the theogonic key is the key that
AAB has applied to SD (not HPB's SD). The reasons why I say
this are several. If you refer to the 'Foreword' of TCF,p.xii,
review the five objectives for TCF(I am reproducing brief portions
below; text within square brackets is mine):
"First, to provide ...outline of a scheme of cosmology, philosophy,
and psychology..
Second, ...The emphasis in this book will be found to be laid upon
those forces which are responsible for the objective manifestation
of a solar Logos and of man...
Third,...to show the coherent development of all that is found
within a solar system; to demonstrate that everything which exists
evolves.. and that all forms are but the expression of a
stupendous and Divine Existence [compare this with the words
'permutation of Deity' in your quote for theogonic key]...

> >>  [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).

>   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."

I am looking at p.viii of TCF., last para says: "In TCF the
Tibetan has given us what HPB prophesied he would give, namely
the psychological key to the Cosmic Creation...".
It appears to me that TCF is 'the theogonic key to SD'; I donot
think AAB or Foster is quoting from HPB verbatim when they talk
about the 'psychological key', they are simply providing information
to the reader in their own words, and they seem to be 'paraphrasing'
what HPB had written somewhere, either in her books or the papers
that AAB ran into (some of which were given by Mr. Prater to AAB).
It is impossible in my opinion for anyone (like you or me)
to have such a complete mastery over HPB's CWs so as to deny
categorically that HPB has ever talked about something resembling
what AAB calls a psychological key, and frankly
I donot much care to settle the issue of whether TCF supplies
the key to SD or "HPB's SD". What is important to me is that TCF
attempts to extend the work started by HPB, and we can see for
ourselves as we continue our study of TCF as to how this has been
done. BTW, I'd like to search for the two quotes that Brenda had
provided from SD, one related to a prediction by HPB that the
Masters could send someone in the 20th century to explain further
the 'Atma-Vidya' (or something like that) and the second related
to psychology. I have more than 300 messages and hopefully I can
find these two quotes within the next few days; otherwise if it
is possible at all for you to reproduce them here, I'd like to
have another chance to see how what HPB has said relates to what
is said by AAB wrt this prophecy.

>      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?

See above. In your mind, do you make a distinction between a
prediction and a prophecy? If so, it is a prophecy that AAB is
referring to and not a prediction of HPB.
>
>      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.

Yeah, there is a problem of jiving the various terms; in particular
it appears that AAB has used the terms coined by Leadbeater and
Besant, but let us not be hasty to conclude that this implies that
AAB agreed with what Leadbeater or Besant taught (I have reproduced
sometime back portions of the AAB autobiography which are clearly
very critical of Besant and Leadbeater). AAB may have employed the
terms used by Leadbeater/Besant as they were the ones most familiar
to her, or most in vogue those days within theosophical circles.

>      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?

Based on our progress so far, I predict the following results:
(a)You and I (and all those following these discussions) will
learn a whole lot of new things as a result of this effort;

(b)We will be able to reconcile several teachings but will come
up with a list of outstanding questions, which can be posed to other
esotericists. I donot mind contributing to an effort to publish
our findings!

>      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.

Well, I am back to square one on this one. And I am afraid that
I cannot comment further on this until I see what Besant and
Leadbeater's ES material looks like. I have seen a lot of the AS
material and that jives perfectly in my opinion with what I have
learnt from HPB's books. Can you tell me in which published
books of AAB this Leadbeater/Besant ES material may have appeared
(your conjectures will be fine)?  Also, I have to point out that
HPB in 'Key to Theosophy' has talked very highly about Besant,
and in fact has quoted from Besant ('Study in Consciousness')
so unless you point out something specific in these ES teachings
that is against what HPB taught, it may be that there is validity
in these ES materials as well.

> 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.

This will (may be) give me enough time to also answer/comment on
a couple of your previous messages on TCF

Best Wishes on your academic studies (one day I hope you will
write some more about what exactly you are covering in school).

Fraternally,

Arvind