Theos-Talk Archives (February 1994 Message tl00044)

Arvind

>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.

     There isn't much to say.  They are Mahatma letters dating
from 1870 to 1910, written to a host of people in the movement at
that time.  Some of the recipients will be familiar to you, such
as Olcott and Leadbeater, others will not be.  They were compiled
and annotated by C. Jinarajadasa, from the Adyar archives.   The
first series was originally published in 1919, and has about 47
letters.  The second series was published in 1926, and has about
82 letters.  From a historical standpoint they are priceless, and
reveal a lot of what was going on in the Society.  Personally, I
think you would get a lot more out of them, if you were grounded
in history first.

> 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.

     First of all, H.P.B. denied that all of her writings were
"dictated" from the Mahatmas.  Probably only a small percentage
of it was.  Therefore I would not assume that errors in her
writings are "dictation" errors.  This may have been AAB's
problem, as you suggest, but in H.P.B.'s case, it is pretty clear
that it wasn't.

>>      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!

     I don't forget, because these are the experiences by which I
learn by.  I am still distressed, because I see no indication
that communication on the subject was ever achieved, which is the
point of communicating in the first place.  It seems that the
more I write about any one subject, the less is communicated.
The reason why I keep returning to the same points is because
your replies don't indicate to me that you understood.

>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.

     Of course I can if you want, but the misspellings are
symptoms, not the cause.  Correcting grammar and spelling errors
does not get to the central issue.  The issue is not spelling and
grammar, but the culture inherent in the language.  "English
English" is a different language from a cultural point of view.
We speak American English here.  The same words will have
different cultural implications.  Some consistent characteristic
misspellings that I have noticed are:

Krishnamurty  should be  Krishnamurti
Parucker      "          Purucker
donot          "         do not (or) don't


>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.

     I think the bigger issue will be the more important (as far
as this dialogue is concerned) Leadbeater Biography.

>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.

     We not only have a different perception of the significance
of the use of SD and TSD, but we have a different perception of
what the issue is that I find significant.  Once again, the issue
is not that this issue determines "the truth or otherwise of the
AAB teachings."  The issue is to figure out what AAB and FB are
saying.  We have to figure out what the writers are trying to
say, before we can make a comparison.  If we read "cat" are we
supposed to always think "dog?"  Or perhaps, we are supposed to
only sometimes think "dog."  If we read TSD, are we supposed to
understand SD?  You can change your position upon what you
believe AAB and FB to mean concerning SD and TSD every week from
now until the next manvantara, and nothing will be solved.  We
need to know what was really meant.  If we can't solve this
relatively simple problem, what is going to happen when we get
into the philosophy?  Unless we can decode what they mean by the
terms they use, it is a waste of time to try to make comparisons.

>>      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.

     I don't follow your reply.  How does it relate to mine?  If
you "ignore claims by others" why do you keep informing me of
everyone's occult status?

>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.

     Let's get through TCF first.

That's it for tonight

Jerry Hejka-Ekins