Theos-Talk Archives (February 1994 Message tl00017)

Jerry H-E,

>      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.

No I am not suggesting this.  I am suggesting that the distinction
between SD and TSD appears to be a 'big deal' for you, but it is
not such a big deal for others.  If Foster was alive today, you could
have gotten an answer to your very specific question.  Perhaps he
would have shown you some reference or papers where HPB wrote
this.  I donot know the answer to your question and have previously
offered to include it in a formal request to Lucis.

> 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
>         disciple.
>
>      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.

I already stated that I have never come across the word 'theogonic'
in my reading of AAB material, but I will look up the index to AAB
writings and see if there is any reference to it, and if there is
one, I'll let you know.  Yes, it is confusing that different authors
have used different words to refer to the same thing;  in general I'd
grant anyone the right to use any words they use provided they explain
somewhere what they mean by them.

>      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.

One of the drawbacks of this medium (as compared to face-to-face
communication) is that many times I have to assume where the
problems may lie when we are not in agreement on something.
Redundancies like this are likely to continue to occur but hopefully
will decline over time as we understand each other better and better.

>      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:
>
>      HPB                      AAB
>
> Psychology (human context) = Psychology (human context)
>
> Theogonic (cosmo. context) = Psychology (cosmological context)

Actually, AAB in TCF has attempted to outline the evolution of
consciousness ('soul aspect') of a human being into a
Planetary Logos, and that of a Planetary Logos into a Solar Logos,etc.
Psychology in the human context is in fact the same as psychology
in the cosmological context.  This is the true basis of
brotherhood, everything is interrelated!  There is but ONE SOUL!!
See for example, p. 233 of TCF "The manifesting Units of Consciousness".

> > 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.

I was making the point that by 1945 AAB's books had treated
enough of psychology to enable AAB and FB to use the 'true psychology'
as a commonplace term, without referring to 'theogony' or having
to put a footnote or explanation (as HPB has done at several places)
to indicate that by psychology, 'the science of the soul' was
meant and not the materilistic definition of it.

>      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
> "Linga Sarira."

Yes, we have uncovered this problem about the relationships
between various bodies; I need to get back to that message but
perhaps you can tell me about the two bodies that are missing
from that reference I had quoted from the Light of the Soul.
I know one of them is the Physical Body (which
is not a 'principle' according to both HPB and AAB).

>      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.
>

OK, let me have the dissertation on Leadbeater (is this the same
as 'The Elder Brother'?) for now.

> > 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
> > now.
>
>      Cloth or paper?

Cloth, and you can bill me for any difference that I may owe you.
BTW, there is a friend of mine at AT&T Bell Labs who is also
interested in K's biography; I'll ask him to send you an e-mail
if he wants a copy of that book.

> > I thought I'd double check with you on the address to which I
> > should send a check for $ 14 to subscribe to Theosophical
> > History;
> > I have:
>
> > Dr. James A. Santucci
> > Dept of Religious Studies
> > California State University
> > Fullerton CA  92634-9480
>
> > Is this correct?
>
>      Yes.

I am sending $26 for a 2 year subscription.  Do they actually
teach theosophy or offer courses in it at USC or CSU?

Fraternally,

Arvind