Theos-Talk Archives (March 1994 Message tl00018)

Jerry H-E,
>
>      Aside from a speculative passing mention of AAB at the end
> of his book, Tillett does not deal with AAB at all.  So there are
> no "links" here.  I am only trying to clarify your position on
> CWL's believability.  AAB had to make treatment of CWL either
> directly or indirectly, because they were contemporary, and he
> dominated the ES at the time.  There is no way for her to avoid
> doing so, if she did not want a confused mulligan stew of
> theosophy and neo-theosophy.  Therefore it is important to be
> clear on Leadbeater before we get into any of these direct or
> indirect treatments.  You say that you know of only one reference
> to Leadbeater in AAB's writings.  If there is truly only one
> reference (direct or indirect) to Leadbeater, then he is probably
> of no importance, and we can drop the whole thing right here.
> But if Leadbeater's teachings are part of AAB's (acknowledged or
> not), then we have a problem.  Do you follow my reasoning?  It is
> very important that you do.

I follow your reasoning; let drop the discussion regarding CWL
right here.

>
>      Since, I didn't mention G. de P., I'm at a loss to know what
> you are responding to, or correcting me on here.  That you
> distinguish AAB from GdeP by saying that one is an "extension"
> and the other an "expansion" is an interesting distinction, but
> you would also have to give an example of how GdeP's "expansion"
> is different from AAB's "extension" for me to follow your point.

Let me explain my position by reference to what is called
'theorems' in math.  Each theorem is a 'fundamental truth'.
Some theorems can be extended further and the related extension
may be called a 'Lemma' in case of a minor extension and a new
theorem in case of a major extension of the original theorem.
My impression is that if HPB gave out, let us say the equivalent
of 100 'theorems',then AAB gave out an additional 100 or more
theorems.  This is what I mean by AAB extending theosophical
teaching given by HPB.  GdeP did an excellent job of explaining
further HPB's 100 theorems (so to speak) and perhaps adding a few
Lemmas here and there but it is my impression that he did not
give out the equivalent of any new 'theorems'.This is what I
meant by expansion.  You can see why it is not possible to take
AAB teaching and see how it is derived from HPB teaching.  There
is no incompatibility that we have found so far
between the two sets of teachings but they
are independent of each other.

>      The entity that you I think your are referring to is
> discussed in TSD under a lot of different names: The ever-living
> human Banyan; GREAT SACRIFICE etc.  Read beginning on the bottom
> of page 207, vol. 1 of TSD, and you will find a discussion on
> this, that I think you will feel is "just like AAB."  Therefore,
> I would have to disagree with you that this is AAB's teaching.
> It was in TSD first.  However, since you are looking for specific
> teachings to compare, perhaps this would be one to start with--
> though I would have preferred beginning with a more basic
> teaching.  I will pull together the HPB material on this, and you
> can pull together the AAB material. Then we can do a comparison.
> OK?

I'll post what I know about the Planetary Logos from AAB
books soon and'll look forward to the HPB material that you
collect.

>      I have lost count as to how many times you have made the
> above statement, and I have lost count as to how many times I
> have replied that I am *not interested* in proving to you that
> AAB is consistent or inconsistent with HPB's teachings.  This is
> an investigation.  If you really want this kind of challenge, I
> will be happy to put you in touch with a dozen people who believe
> that AAB is inconsistent with HPB.  You are welcome to argue with
> them.  So far no one (at least on this bulletin board) has tried
> to show you that anything in AAB teaching is INCONSISTENT with
> HPB teaching."   Because you repeatedly post this challenge, I
> wonder what you really want.  Do you want someone to take an
> adversarial roll and try to prove to you something that you don't
> believe?  What would be accomplished in doing this?  I'm at a
> loss to understand why you keep repeating the above statement.
> There is an old saying that one who keeps protesting the same
> thing over and over again, reallly means the opposite: "Me thinks
> that thou protests too much" is a famous line form the
> Shakespearean plays.  From your repeated and unsolicited protest,
> should I read an underlying fear that AAB may be inconsistant
> with HPB?

(a)What do you mean that 'this is an investigation'?  In many
investigations that I have undertaken, there is
a 'hypothesis' to be tested.  What is your hypothesis for
the investigation? What result do you hope to achieve by this
investigation?  Please foregive me for being very dumb, but you
need to clearly lay down your ideas about what you hope to
accomplish in this 'investigation' and how you hope it will
be carried.  Every now and then you make a statement like '..
this will come in handy down the road in our investigation..'
which I donot quite understand.  We seem to be working on two
different sets of objectives; what you are calling a challenge
from me is really what my hypothesis for this investigation
is.  Do you follow me, brother?

(b)If it turns out that AAB is inconsistent with HPB with regard
to some specific teaching, I'll have to see which one appeals to me
more.  I am not afraid that we may find inconsistencies between
the two sets of teachings.  Discovery of inconsistencies
will give legitimacy to the opinions of many theosophists that 'they
donot care for AAB teachings' (I am willing to accept that as a
reason for not reading AAB).  Do you follow where I am coming from?

>      This is not a productive question, nor does it exhibit an
> understanding of what is meant by "levels of meaning."  The SD
> has seven keys (levels of meaning if you like), but TSD is an
> outline of the SD.  TSD is written in English.  It is not some
> coded hieroglyphic with seven simultaneous interpretations.  One
> doesn't have to know every last thing about the seven keys in
> order to understand TSD.  I have repeated this many times, but it
> appears that you still don't understand what I'm trying to get
> across.

OK, may be I did not quite word my initial comment exactly.
There are the seven keys, and then there are the different levels
at which the teaching itself can be interpreted i.e. TSD and
each of the AAB/DK books have multiple meanings. I thought I read
somewhere that (at least for AAB/DK books) there are seven ways
to interpret the text of the teaching itself.  Many people who have
read these books repeatedly several times claim that every time they
read them, they get a different meaning...

>      For the sake of argument, I will answer you and say that I
> understand the SD on seven levels.  This is a true and accurate
> statement.  When you understand my above explanation, you will
> understand my answer.

You claim to understand SD (not TSD) on seven levels.  Well, I see
that makes you at least a Mahatma, because even HPB did not claim
to understand SD fully...

Fraternally,
Arvind