Theos-Talk Archives (February 1994 Message tl00035)

Hi Terry (Jerry H-E, some stuff below is for you),

> The various discussions on Theos-l, especially
> the dialogue between Jerry H-E and Arvind Kumar, have prompted the
> writing of the following notes.  These notes have been compiled
> from several sources and with the help of several friends and
> acquaintances.

I want to join others in thanking you for contributing to
the discussion on theos-l/roots.  I also appreciate your
previous comments regarding theosophic history that you made
specifically for my benefit.

>    Instead of trying to wade through even 1/10th of all this
> latter-day teachings, why don't students of Theosophy turn to HPB's
> own voluminous writings and seriously study them?

I guess one problem with this approach is that many people are
not aware of HPB teachings to begin with.  In my own case,
I started with Bailey on the recommendation of at least a couple of
people and found my way to HPB through Bailey writings.  Let me also
say that the HPB material that I have read so far is excellent (to
say the least) but for me so far anyways, fits in completely with
what I already know from the Bailey books/AS teaching.  It
provides historical perspective (much like learning from
'grandma' in the form of HPB teaching as well as 'ma' in the
form of AAB teaching).  And I do intend to read all of HPB writings as
soon as practical.

>    If no other Theosophical writer had every written a book on
> Theosophy after HPB died in 1891, we would still have more than 22
> volumes of HPB's own writings to read, study, ponder and apply.  And
> we would also have *The Mahatma Letters* and two volumes of *The
> Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom*.  I would suggest that there
> is enough metaphysics, occult informtion, practical advise, ethical
> counsel, devotional material, spiritual exercises, etc. in HPB's and
> the Masters' writings to last most of us a lifetime!

The two volumes of "The letters from MOW".. who are they written by?
JHE, do you carry them and what do you think of them?

>    Furthermore, why did the Masters want HPB to write all of this
> material if it was to be superseded and supplanted withing a
> relatively short period of time by the writings of Judge, de Purucker,
> Besant, Leadbeater, or Bailey, etc.?

I can only speak for the Bailey material; it was written during
1920-50 and appeared in print gradually by 1960 (30-80
years after HPB's writings).  It seeks to provide further
explanation of what HPB wrote and IMHO gives very plausible
explanations for some of the things that HPB touched upon and
did not completely give out, alongwith some entirely new
information.  AAB material is considered to be the second
instalment of the new dispensation for the aquarian age (the third
stage is still to come).

Perhaps the Masters would have loved to gave all necessary
instruction for this era through HPB, but she was quite sick, and
could not stay alive for all instruction to be given through her.
More likely and this is strictly my theory, HPB was a great initiate
(ARHAT) but not a MASTER.  My understanding is that the Masters
meet and update their plans as conditions warrant.  In AAB perhaps
was found the right vehicle(s) for transmission of further
hierarchial teaching.  HPB might not have been aware of the Masters'
plans, or could have been wrong in asserting, if she asserted, that
no more of the teaching is going to be given until 1975.

I want to draw yours and JHE's attention towards a line that appears
on p.  235 of JTH July -Oct 1991 in a review of the book "Rene Guenon
and the future of the West:the life and the writings of a 20th
century metaphysician" by Joscelyn Godwin:

"These recommendations must be accompanied by a warning that
Guenon, like HPB, is not always accurate".

Are you aware of any instances where HPB may have been wrong?

>    Students of Theosophy can believe or disbelive in whatever they
> want to; they can read and study whatever they choose to.  But why
> not go to the *FOUNTAIN SOURCE* of the Theosophical Movement (i.e.,
> HPB's writings and the letters of the Masters) and read and study
> these writings - *without* having these writings filtered through and
> interpreted by later claimants whether Judge, de Purucker, Besant,
> Leadbeater, Bailey, etc ?

This is a great suggestion for a beginner on the path, and I
support it fully.

> If you really believe HPB was in contact with Adepts and that she
> gave out genuine and valuable teachings, why not study these teachings
> instead of some latter-day claimant whose claims and teachings may
> or may not be true?  And with so many individuals claiming to be a
> messenger of the Masters, why not study HPB and use the criteria to
> be found in her writings and teachings to test whether later claims
> are true or false?
>
>      THERE IS NO RELIGION (belief, opinion, conviction, etc.)

>                           HIGHER THAN THE TRUTH

Yes, this is an approach that should be used.
I donot know what else you are going to cover next, but I
certainly look forward to reading from your new posts again soon.
You seem to be close to Daniel; I enjoyed the exchange of a couple of
messages on theos-l with him.  What is he upto these days?
Can you say a few words of the work that he is doing, and
perhaps what you are doing as well?

Best Regards,

Arvind