Theos-Talk Archives (February 1994 Message tl00047)

Jerry H-E,

Today we are celebrating the birthday of Rita (my daughter)
and I will be on theos-l for only a short while.

>     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.?

I looked up the references to Devachan in Bailey books; they are:

Definition TCF 736-737 LS 30-31
Experience EH 496-498
Goals LS 30
Nature of TCF 1108-1109
Subplane TWM 374

I hope you are familiar with the abbreviations of AAB books,
in any case you can look up the references in TCF.  I'll be
interested to know what you find out as far as if AAB's
definition is same as that of HPB or not.

The teaching on Devachan can at best be a working hypothesis
until we experience Devachan; it is hard to tell who is
right or wrong but it is good to listen to all viewpoints.

I have perhaps time enough to touch upon a couple of other things.

1.A completely dishonest person may call himself 'honest',
and that will be wrong; however that does not negate the
idea or the concept of honesty.  Similarly the concept of
initiations is hinted at by HPB in the Voice (and perhaps
other places) and even though various people have claimed
perhaps in error to be great initiates, it does not take
away from the concept of initiation.  In the AAB books,
the following terminology is used:

0-1 Probationary path, Aspirants
1-3 Disciples
3-5 Initiates (4.0 = Arhat)
5+  Masters (6= Chohan)

I find it very useful to consider that various writers
that we have been discussing on theos-l fall at various
points on this scale of evolution or initiatory path.  It is
possible that HPB was at 4.0, AAB at 3.2 and various others at
between 1.6 to 2.4 or so.  Each one of these authors was able
to interpret what they 'perceived' on the level of their higher
self according to their own stage of development.  The point is
that 'everyone is right according to their own stage of
development', there is probably some errors mixed up with
some accurate information in respect of all the authors that
we have discussed, including HPB. AAB, Judge, Purucker, K,...

You seem to be very uninterested in this subject, perhaps
we can find another opportunity to discuss it further.

2.In your last message you said that I had been changing my
position wrt SD v TSD all the time.  I'd like to clarify my
position. I have told you before that this is not a 'big deal'
for me, and you have countered that it is a big deal for you.
Actually, we may be shooting for different objectives as we
are continuing this dialog.  My objective is to learn as much
as I can from this communication, and the fact that we are studying
TCF is almost incidental to me.  Even though I personally donot
care for the distinction between SD and TSD, I have been over
the course of the last several messages suggesting to you what
may have been the possible explanations for the use of the terms
by FB, 'to help you out', so to speak.  If you want me to just
give you one answer at one time on one subject and not talk about it
anymore after that, that is ok from now onwards, but that was
not in our original agreement. Our discussions are very loosely
structured at the moment which suits me fine but if we need
to define the 'terms' or a specific protocol for discussion that
is ok with me as well.

I'd like to add that you have not found
anything wrt SD/TSD in the writing of DK or AAB (at least
you were prepared to give AAB the benefit of the doubt); your
concern is with FB's staements only so perhaps
you can 'dismiss' his statement in the same way as
you dismissed the quote from the Divine Plan by
Borborka on the topic of the '7 keys'.  Can I propose that we
assume that TCF is the key to SD and proceed with its study?

Got to go now.

All the best to you,

Arvind