Theos-Talk Archives (February 1994 Message tl00040)

>      Yes I carry THE LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS OF WISDOM. Let me
> know if you want me to send you a set.

I was hoping you will say a few words about your opinion of this
set, who the author is etc. I bought the Mahatma Letters to
Sinnett some 2 years ago but have not ventured to read it so far.

BTW, thanks for the latest package, with the bio on K and
IG teachings. I am glued these days to the IG teachings
whenever I get a chance. A truly wonderful effort by the
authors!  Also, I loved reading JTH and am looking forward
to seeing the next issue. If you have any old issues/
duplicates or perhaps if there is subscription to old
issues of JTH, I may be interested in having those as well.

> As far as H.P.B.,
> making mistakes, however, she said this herself on many
> occasions. Can you quote any student of H.P.B. who has ever said
> otherwise?

No, I cannot quote anyone who has claimed infallibility for
HPB, but I'd like the same standard to be applied to all
authors, esp. Bailey. Mistakes/errors are liable to be made
as long as humans are doing the work of writing down the
material (even if it originates at the highest levels in the
purest possible form), as the channel from the plane of Buddhi or Higher
Mental subplanes to the brain (via the concrete mind,
and astral body) is not entirely clear in most cases.

>      If you want an example where H.P.B. is considered wrong--her
> definition of Devachan (which she repeated many times) is wrong
> according to every major scholar in the field of Buddhism. By the
> way, does AAB define Devachan the same way as H.P.B.?
>

AAB has used 'Devachan' throughout her books, I'll look up
where she has defined it and let you know. Actually, one of
my favorite compilations of Bailey material is 'Death the
Great Adventure' of which I keep several copies with me all the
time. More later on Devachan.

>      I wasn't hurt, but rather distressed. I used the joke
> because it was an excellent and humorous way to illustrate a very
> important point. I recall that over a month ago you had
> chastised me roundly for accusing AAB of lying, when I never used
> the word "lie", nor did it cross my mind to accuse her of doing
> such a thing. I thought we had resolved that issue.
> Nevertheless, the memory of that event came to mind as I
> transcribed the joke, queued by the word "lie."  It was to insure
> that there woud not be another misunderstanding that I prefaced a
> few lines explaining the significance of the joke, before
> spelling it out. Obviously I had failed to communicate, and that
> is distressing.

To learn from each other (to communicate better if nothing else)
is the name of the game!  I have profited a lot by this whole
exercise. Let us move on, there is nothing to be distressed
about. Forgetting the things which lie behind, let us strive
towards our higher spiritual possibilities!

>      Actually, If I was more astute, I would have given more
> attention to certain characteristic misspellings and phrases that
> occur over and over again in your messages. They are a dead give-
> a-way to the observant that English is your second language. But
> what this means for you is that the meaning of what you read
> becomes less sure, and is dependent upon your knowledge of the
> subtleties of the American culture. A language expert once told
> me that English is a fairly easy language to learn superficially,
> but it takes about 45 years to learn it well.

Can you give me examples (whenever they occur) of my characteristic
misspellings?  That will be great. I hope they are only because
of the use of the 'English' English which is what I learnt as
I was growing up in India and not due to a lack of command of the
language.

>      As I said, the "joke" was intended to teach, not to insult
> or to accuse. But this incident raises some concerns for me.
> What if we were to find "substantial proof" (whatever that is)
> that AAB or FB lied, or were frauds, or whatever negative things
> you might think of. Would you be able to handle that revelation?
> After all, you say that you "owe a great deal to AAB."  Does part
> of that debt to her include protecting yourself from any truths
> that might tarnish or destroy your image of her?  Only you can
> answer that question, but it is an important one to ask yourself.
>
I think that it will be no problem for me to handle the truth
about the Bailey or any other teachings. Like HPB, Bailey has
stressed the importance of 'being unto a lamp for your own feet'.
I had no problem handling the bio of K by Sloss.

>      Yes we have "Cellophane tape" and "Scotch tape," "copying
> machine" and "xerox machine."  People use these words
> interchangeably, and is based upon what is called "brand
> familiarity."   For TSD and the SD, I think the issue is
> different. In my 30 years experience, I don't recall hearing
> anyone using those two phrases interchangeably. The SD is a term
> used in TSD, but is rarely used in conversation or in writings.
> Instead of "the SD," most people use terms such as "The Ancient
> Wisdom" or "Theosophical Teachings."  In my experience, people
> generally say something like "~The Secret Doctrine~ is an outline
> of theosophical teachings."  This kind of phrasing shows that
> they *do* make the distinction, and change "SD" to "Theosophical
> Teachings" or "Ancient Wisdom" to avoid the redundancy of a
> phrase like: "~The Secret Doctrine~ is an outline of the Secret
> Doctrine."  If AAB did use these words interchangeably, it would
> strike me as a strange idiosyncrasy. Can you find a pattern of
> instances in her writings where she uses these two words
> interchangeably?

I have not done any research on this, but clearly we have a
different perception of the significance of the use of SD and
TSD by FB. On a scale of 1(least significant)  to 10 (most
significant) as far as its use as a factor in determining
the truth or otherwise of the AAB teachings,  I give it
a 1. You perhaps assign it a higher weight, which is ok with me.

>      Yes I am familiar with this "system of gradations,"  and I
> have to be honest with you--statements of people's occult status
> is something that I take with a grain of salt. It means nothing
> to me. If you were per chance to tell me that FB Bailey was now
> the Maha Chohan, it would mean nothing to me. Not that I don't
> understand who the Maha Chohan is; I just can't verify these
> kinds of claims. Regardless of what occult status any person
> claims for themselves or is claimed for them, I look at their
> lives and writings with the same scrutiny if they made no claims
> at all. If I find errors or ignorance in the writings of people
> who claim high occult status, it just makes them look that much
> more ridiculous.

I ignore claims by others as far as their level of achievement
on the path, but I do find the system of initiations/initiatory
level useful in putting things in perspective for myself and also in
discussion with others. Perhaps we should give it a try sometime. I'll
try to write more on this later.

>      If FB were a third or fourth degree initiate, as you
> suggest, then perhaps I should take your queue and have very high
> expectations for the precision of his language. Since precision
> in our communications is one of the things you have learned from
> the AS, then you can sympathize with my problem with occult
> writers who use words with different meanings interchangeably.
> As for your messages, when I don't follow your logic, I always
> let you know.

In order to truly judge the precision of FB's expression, we
need to read some of his books (e.g. Spirit of Masonry). I find
Bailey's language, esp. in the books she wrote with DK almost magical.

Fraternally,

Arvind