Feb 03, 1994 03:46 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
>> Therefore it appears that your solution (that TCF is the
>> "psychological key" to the SD.) follows my third possible
>> scenario--that Foster Bailey's statement is a misprint (or a
>> mistake) that nobody ever bothered to change--i.e. that he
>> misquoted or misunderstood H.P.B.'s prophecy to refer to THE,
>> when it really referred to the SD. But until we find the text
>> of this prophecy, we won't be able to clarify this.
> Foster Bailey wrote the preface to TCF in 1950, after
> AAB had passed on. I donot know what the 'occult status'
> of FB was, and it is possible that as he was writing the
> 'Introduction' to TCF', he only wanted to say a few words
> about the reasons why TCF was written, without being too
> concerned about the disfference between the key to SD or TSD.
> You seem to have done a lot of research in this area but I
> venture to say that most ordinary readers of SD or TCF are
> not concerned about this distinction. May I suggest that
> we take Foster's (and AAB's) statements that TCF is a
> psychological key to SD at face value for now, and put this
> aside as one of the questions to be resolved? I plan to
> write to Lucis Trust about this question formally (and
> also to enquire if the manuscripts of AAB's writing are
> available for public view, and if the 'HPB papers that Mr.
> Prater gave AAB' are available to the public now). Perhaps you
> want to suggest some more questions before I send this
> request to Lucis.
In other words you are suggesting that Foster Bailey didn't
know what he was talking about and he got away with it because
most people reading the book are not informed enough to make a
distinction between the SD and TSD. One would hope that AAB,
since she wrote the book, would have made the distinction, or at
least the Tibetan would have made it. But I find that she also
refers to TSD rather than the SD in her Autobiography:
H.P.B. said that the next interpretation of the Ageless
Wisdom would be a psychological approach, and ~A Treatise on
Cosmic Fire~, which I published in 1925, is the
psychological key to ~The Secret Doctrine~. (214)
Another revolutionary thing that the Tibetan did was when He
dictated the contents of ~A Treatise on Cosmic Fire~. In
this book He gave what H.P.B. prophesied He would give, the
psychological key to cosmic creation. H.P.B. stated that in
the 20th century a disciple would come who would give
information concerning the three fires with which ~The
Secret Doctrine~ deals: electric fire, solar fire and fire
by friction. This prophecy was fulfilled when ~A Treatise
on Cosmic Fire~ was given out to the public. (236)
Since her statement was repeated twice, it is pretty clear
that she meant TSD, and not the SD. But her first statement is
ambiguous enough that I can accept that she also did not make a
distinction between the SD and TSD, as H.P.B. had clearly done.
Therefore, I'm willing to accept that by TSD, she meant the SD.
Why she did not make this distinction isn't evident. If I were
having a conversation with someone who claimed to have read THE,
and that person did not make a distinction between TSD and the
SD, I would take this as strong evidence that they did not have
any real understanding of what they claimed to have read.
Her second statement is also revealing because she gives
some details about H.P.B.'s "prophecy:"
1. The Tibetan (DK) would give out the book.
2. The Book would give information concerning the three
fires discussed in TSD.
3. The book would come out in the 20th century though a
So these are the details that we can expect to find in
H.P.B.'s prophecy, if it was ever made.
I'm also willing to take on face value (for now) that TCF is
a "psychological approach" (AAB's words) to the "Ageless Wisdom,"
using AAB's definition of psychology. Regarding that by
"psychological key" AAB meant the "theogonic key," if you can
find where AAB says they are synonymous, I will accept that this
is what she meant. But I'm at a loss as to why AAB would want to
discard H.P.B.'S term in favor of her own without notification or
explanation. This can only create confusion.
> HPB has used the term 'psychology' in the sense of the 'science
> of the soul' throughout her writings (I gave many examples in
> my previous message and have found several more in Isis
> Unveiled). The use of the term psychology by both HPB and AAB
> is to mean the same thing.
I'm becoming a bit weary of reading this same argument over
and over again. I will repeat for the fourth time that I never
disagreed with you in the first place on this. H.P.B. used the
term psychology in the classical meaning, and sometimes in the
modern meaning. AAB appears to have also used the term
psychology in the classical meaning. If this is not yet clear,
please go back and reread my last three communications on this
subject, and advise me as to what I have not made clear, or what
I had written that convinces you that we disagree on this.
> On the other hand, I have not seen
> any place (other than the one cited by you) in HPB's writings
> where she has used the term 'theogonic'. I have not come
> across 'theogonic' in AAB's writing so far. It is possible
> that HPB may have used 'theogonic' instead of 'psychological'
> as she was always concerned about the use of the term
> psychology by the materialists to mean something totally
> different from what she meant to convey. AAB did not have
> that problem as she has clearly defined psychology to begin
> with and she (or the Tibetan) was aware of the stupedous amount
> of work that they were going to produce later, in the form of
> the two volumes of 'A Treatise on the Seven Rays' that deal
> with Esoteric Psychology.
H.P.B. used definite words to mean definite things--and she
clearly defined them. When she wrote "theogonic key" she meant
"theogonic key." When she wrote "psychology" she meant
"psychology." In ~Isis Unveiled ~, as I recall, the word
psychology was used in context with magic and phenomena, not to
cosmology. In TSD, she appears to have maintained this usage.
The "Theogonic Key" on the other hand, concerned the "god's"
relation to humanity as found in Religion and Mythology.
Following this Logic, I suppose one could argue that AAB took
HPB's term (psychology) and redefined it into a cosmological
context, and ignored the term "Theogonic" used by H.P.B. The
table of translation would look something like this:
Psychology (human context) = Psychology (human context)
Theogonic (cosmo. context) = Psychology (cosmological context)
> Remember that all references to the 'psychological key' that we
> have seen so far have come from either the autobiography or
> Foster Bailey's introduction to TCF, both of which were
> written after 1945, by which time AAB had finished writing her
> major works dealing with psychology.
I don't follow your point here.
> That may be the case, but this should be looked at on a case by
> case basis and not blindly. If you give me some examples of
> Besant/Leadbeater terms that AAB has employed (and HPB did
> not), I can dig out the references where the term may be
> defined in AAB books, and we can compare her meaning with that
> of HPB and others for similar terms.
Let's start with "etheric double." I will tell you right
off however, it is not synonymous with H.P.B.'s "Astral body" or
> Wow, I am amazed at what you do as part of a Master's program
> in English. Are you evaluated on your command of the language
> or the ability to decipher these difficult to read materials
> (are they all written in English??) ? BTW, an elder brother of
> mine and an elder sister, and a brother-in-law of mine back
> home in India have each done a Master's in English as well, and
> all three of them have been teaching college level English for
> some time. I did not realize how close this subject is to
An English Major today needs to be knowledgeable in
philosophy, psychology, linguistics, semiotics, and history.
Twenty years ago it was easier. Everything is in English, but I
read some French, and my Master's thesis will probably involve
some translation from French to English.
> I was curious about the cover of Parucker's ES instructions;
> it seems to have letters that belong to some language. I could
> recognize some of them as belonging to Sanskrit/Hindi but
> others escaped any recognition.
I don't know. Some look like Hebrew letters.
> What is a good book to get a perspective on theosophical
> history? Am I correct in assuming that there is another
> volume of HPB Collected Writings coming that will contain
> her letters?
Every Society has their own version of the history. You
need to read and compare them all. However, in your case, I
really think you need to read the Leadbeater biography. It was
written by an outsider, with no political axe to grind for or
against CWL. It was a Doctoral thesis, so it had to pass a
review committee that the book's facts are all fully documented,
and that he isn't working on speculations or gossip. Though it
is organized around Leadbeater, it will give you a good view of
the Society that AAB knew, and what she was dealing with. It
pretty closely covers the Society's history from 1882-1934, and
give background for the 1875-1882 period. Considering your area
of interest, this is the most relevant history. There is another
book that covers Krishnamurti for around this time. You might
get into that one too, as this is also very relevant.
H.P.B.'s letters will be published in three volumes (last I
heard), but might be another couple of years yet. But her
letters to Sinnett are available now.
> Also, is the original Key to Theosophy included in one of
> these volumes of CWs?
No. Though this was Boris' original plan, Wheaton has not
wanted to do this. Perhaps after the letters are published,
things might change.
> Below Paul is mentioning that the Theosophical movement looks
> at HPB through Sinnett's eyes. What does it mean? This is
> directly opposed to my impression that most mainline
> theosophists have greater regard for HPB than for Sinnett.
> Does this have anything to do with the Mahatma Letters to
> Sinnett? At least publicly (in SD) HPB has lavishly praised
> Sinnett and referred to Esoteric Buddhism rather frequently as
> a genuine theosophical work.
>> One thing I hope the new volume of letters will do is liberate
>> the Theosophical movement from seeing HPB through Sinnett's
>> eyes. Since the two of them ended up so mutually hostile, one
>> cannot help wondering just how honest she would have been with
>> him-- as compared to, say, Hartmann-- on important elements in
>> her life. I have mentioned here before that the version of
>> Master M. told to Sinnett ended up being orthodox Theosophical
>> dogma despite conflicting with at least three other versions--
>> mutually contradictory themselves. Why would Sinnett be the
>> one she would choose to tell the real truth?
Paul is meaning some things that only he can best go into,
and I'm sure that he will. But I want to put my two cents worth
in anyway, because I'm looking at it from a slightly different
(but not conflicting) perspective:
Sinnett believed that Blavatsky was under the influence of
Black Magicians. When the Masters broke off correspondence with
him, he found a medium, who he believed was channeling the
Masters for him. The "Masters" channeled by this woman confirmed
every negative suspicion Sinnet had about H.P.B. Leadbeater was
a close friend of Sinnett and used many of his teachings, and
with Besant, conveyed in their writings, a subtlety condescending
attitude about Blavatsky. Paul is making a different point, that
concerns Master M, but I'm just taking the opportunity to answer
your question in a different way.
>> Paul says that this "disfiguring" isn't being done anymore. I
>> don't know. The last instance of this being done that came to
>> my attention was around 1989, but I haven't been watching
> And what was the book or topic in 1989 that was 'disfigured'?
I had in mind a reprint of a message to the American
Convention written by HPB. It speaks in glowing terms about the
work Judge did for the American Section and that it would not
exist without him etc. It was reprinted in THE AMERICAN
THEOSOPHIST around 1989. But in this reprint, all references to
Judge were deleted.
> This is interesting. I'd definitely like to see the Key in
> its entirety. If it is not a part of BCWs, I'd like to buy it
Cloth or paper?
> I thought I'd double check with you on the address to which I
> should send a check for $ 14 to subscribe to Theosophical
> I have:
> Dr. James A. Santucci
> Dept of Religious Studies
> California State University
> Fullerton CA 92634-9480
> Is this correct?
Best to you
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application