Theos-Talk Archives (February 1994 Message tl00048)

Arvind

> 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 don't know which books LS or EH refer to, so I can't look
those one up.  The definition in TCF does not repeat H.P.B.'s
mistake, but is not definitive enough to determine whether it
demonstrates an understanding of the concept or not, but it is
correct a far as it goes.  I will need to see where she defines
the term more precisely.

> 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.

     My concern is whether AAB defines Devachan according to
H.P.B., Buddhist tradition, Leadbeater or....  Whether or not her
definition will match my experience when (or if) I get to
devachan, seems to be a waste time for me to think about.  I'm
not pursuing this investigation to form "hypothesis," on what
devachan is like, but to compare and trace ideas.


> 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)

     Once again you address the issue of honesty, when the issue
was not raised.  That the concept of initiation is in H.P.B.'s
writings is not in dispute.  Many small children believe in Santa
Claus and the Easter Bunny.  I don't believe these children are
dishonest either.  I have met four different women who believe
themselves to be the reincarnation of H.P.B.. One of them, in
fact (A Bailey student), informed me that I was the reincarnation
of Judge.  I don't believe any of these women were dishonest
either.  H.P.B. never announced that she was of any level of
initiation.  I don't believe she was being dishonest.  Leadbeater
and Besant announced themselves to be Arhats.  Leadbeater
announced in 1925 that Krishnamurti was an Arhat.  I also have no
reason to believe that Besant and Leadbeater were dishonest.
Krishnamurti renounced his position of world teacher, Leadbeater,
The Order of the Star, the Theosophical Society, and his
Arhatship in 1930.  I don't believe he was being dishonest
either.  Purucker's and Blavatsky's initiation material differs
from AAB's, but her terminology matches Besant and Leadbeater's.
But I don't believe anyone was being dishonest here.  However, in
light of all the conflicting information, I think I can safely
surmise that some people must be mistaken on some things.
Instead of announcing that "everyone is right" in some way, I
take a different approach.  For instance, I will begin with the
premise that four women living at the same time cannot all be the
reincarnation of Blavatsky.  This is the beginning of a process
called "discrimination."  It is a process that H.P.B. advocated,
by the way.

> 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.

     That you believe that these people are initiates, fall on
"various points on this scale of evolution," and therefore have
superior knowledge, is a matter of faith.  You are welcome to it.
I will have no part of it.  I judge these people on the merits of
their writings, not the level of initiation they claim for
themselves, or what is claimed for them.

> 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,...

     Yes. I agree--Each of these authors were able to interpret
what they perceived.  If their interpretations are even remotely
related to reality, is another question.  All of these teachings
could very well have as much validity as the Easter Bunny.  The
only way to discern the truth is through critical examination--
discrimination--Not faith in the truth of the teachings based
upon the self proclaimed level of initiation of the teacher.
Yes, in a sense, `everyone is right according to their own stage
of development.'  Children are right when they believe in Santa
Claus.  Those four women were right in believing they were
reincarnations of Blavatsky.  HPB, AAB, WQJ, GdeP, etc. were all
right.  You are right. Everyone is right.  That means that I am
right also, in being interested in pursuing the truth, and not
wasting my time proclaiming everyone is right.  I don't care that
everyone is right. It is not a productive position for me.  I am
interested in discerning truth.  I am not interested in
discerning that "everyone is right."

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

     No. I'm just as interested in this subject as any other.
What I'm not interested in is giving credence to teachings based
upon the teacher's claims of being an initiate.  Following your
logic, should I give less credence to H.P.B., because she did not
claim to be an initiate?  Of course not.

> 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 dialogue.  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.

     I believe you are correct in saying that our objectives
differ.  My objective is to look at the Bailey writings and
compare them to H.P.B. and perhaps also Leadbeater and Besant.
In order to do this, I must be able to understand what AAB and FB
mean by the terms they use.  If by "dog" they mean "cat,"  I can
accept that, if I can determine that is what they mean.  My
understanding of what you wrote earlier was that you were certain
that AAB and FB meant "TSD" when they wrote "TSD", until I showed
that this would mean that they didn't know what they were taking
about.  Then you switched and were certain that they meant "the
SD" when they wrote "TSD."  Then you became neutral on the issue,
when the possibility was raised that they may have been quoting
from a document that H.P.B. wrote.  You say that your "objective
is to learn as much as I can from this communication."  Your
pattern of shifting positions suggests to me that you also have
other "objectives"  that play an important part in how you
interpret AAB's writings.  This concerns 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.

     Our original agreement was to look at AAB's teaching and
compare them. In order to look at the teachings, we have to know
what she means by her terms.  When she days "dog" does she mean
"dog" or "cat?"  When she says "TSD" does she mean "TSD" or "the
SD?"  I'm at a loss as to how to make this any clearer.  This
procedure of defining terms is a critical step in the process of
making a comparison of the writings.  If we are free to change
the meaning of her terms anytime we feel uncomfortable with the
implications of the writings, we will be doing nothing but
reinterpreting them to satisfy preconceived notions.  This may be
OK with you, but it is not OK with me.  Please tell me what you
don't understand in this paragraph, that I may try to clarify it.

> 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?

     No again.  My concern is equally with FB and AAB, because
their statements echo each other.  Concerning Barborka, my
dismissal of your interpretation of his statement was based upon
the fact, that in using your interpretation, the second clause in
his statement contradicted the first, and the whole thing became
nonsense--i.e. no meaning at all.  In the case of AAB's and FB's
statements, either meaning does not make the sentences self
contradictory or nonsensical.  Both interpretations generate
meaning.

     I realize that I am taking a more confrontative tone in this
communication.  My reason for doing this is so that we can
finally clear these matters up and move on to other things.
Obviously, my less direct tone in previous postings have failed
to communicate my meanings.  My second reason for taking a more
direct approach is because I will be returning to school Monday
with a very heavy class load, as well as teaching, so my free
time will be very limited--in fact almost non existent.  Because
of this, I regret that I will be communicating less often, and my
communications will have to be much shorter.

     I hope Rita had a wonderful birthday, and please extend my
best wishes to her.

In brotherhood and in the interest of truth,

Jerry Hejka-Ekins