Theos-Talk Archives (March 1994 Message tl00042)

Greetings Jerry H-E,

>      The Wesak festival is without doubt uniquely Leadbeater's,
> and was clearly part of Leadbeater's E.S. teachings long before
> it was published in ~Masters and the Path~.  The inconsistencies
> I was trying to raise between Leadbeater and Blavatsky concerning
> the seven principles is also a result of Leadbeater changing the
> teachings.  These are not "overlaps" but the direct adoption of
> Leadbeater teachings.  They are not H.P.B.'s and they contradict
> her teachings.  So I guess that means that Leadbeater still needs
> to be a subject for scrutiny.  How important is the Wesak
> Festival in the AAB teachings?

The Wesak festival (the full moon of Taurus) alongwith the
Easter(Aries) and the Gemini full moons constitue the three
major full moon festivals in the AAB teaching.  Many of DK's
messages are on occasions of full moons; some of the most
important ones I think are those given on the Wesak festivals.

Do you believe that the day or the time of the full moon
has any special significance?  Is there anything in HPB's
writings about this?

There is a booklet published by Lucis on the Wesak festival
detailing what happens on that occasion in a valley in Tibet.
It appears like a beautiful description of something that
I have NEVER experienced (but which AAB indicates ALL
disciples who have progressed beyond a certain degree
experience). I just assume that I have not reached that
degree of evolvement as yet, that is why I have never
experienced that 'subjective condition' so far.  It is this
description in the booklet (authored by AAB) that seems to
agree with what I found in the Masters and the Path.  I have
no way of knowing whether the description of what happens at
Wesak is true or not!  What is your opinion?

>      Being a literature major, I was taught not to judge a book
> by its title.  The title of the book doesn't assure me that the
> contents of the book is consistent with the title, nor does it
> tell me if AAB's teachings on the subjects suggested by the
> titles are consistent with HPB's.  Too bad--if the covers did
> tell us these things, our job would be very easy.
>
>      I remember reading the "rules" that you are referring to
> some years ago.  Which of HPB's teachings are they suppose to be
> "extensions" of?

I think the original thread here related to why AAB teachings
donot relate to HPB's teachings on a 1:1 basis.  The explanation
is that AAB's theosophical teachings extend (or go beyond)
what HPB gave out so there is no 1:1 relationship.  For example,
if HPB did not say anything about the periods of the full moon,
one could assume that this was something new that AAB
introduced.  Same thing about the rules in TWM (they may not
match anything given out by HPB).

>      No. I don't think he "simplified" her teachings--though he
> lectured on many of them, explaining them in different words.  By
> "extend" I understand you to mean introducing new teachings not
> in HPB's writings, but perhaps hinted at.  I think that would be
> a fair assessment of GdeP's works.  For instance his teachings
> concerning the twelve globes, inner rounds, the initiatory
> cycles, and teachings concerning the nature of the historical
> Jesus are not found in Blavatsky.  He also gives solutions to
> several riddles found in HPB's writings and in the Mahatma
> Letters.  So, based upon your definition, I would say that GdeP
> "extends" as well as "expands" upon HPB's writings.  Like AAB,
> whether these "extensions" are correct is another question.  But
> we are not investigating Purucker here.

That is useful material on GdeP that you have mentioned above.
Do you see that on 'expansions' we can relate the AAB or GdeP
material back to HPB but on 'extensions' we cannot (we can
only speculate on whether these extensions are 'compatible'
or not).

>      As I stated above, one makes a hypothesis *after* the data
> is collected.  This is my understanding of the scientific method.
> Please correct me if I misunderstand the scientific method.  I
> don't think I do.  The Sciences were my best subjects in
> undergrad studies.  As for "accepting AAB teaching,"  that would
> not be appropriate for me to accept or reject it.  When you
> present an AAB teaching, I ask: where does it come from?; how
> does it relate to HPB's teachings?  These are exactly the same
> questions I would have to ask for the purpose of this
> investigation regardless of my feelings about AAB teachings.  As
> I have stated many times before, I'm not interested in accepting
> or rejecting AAB's teachings.  Therefore rather than forming a
> hypothesis without data, I think we should stick with the
> original course of pursuing the question: How does the teachings
> of HPB and AAB compare?  If you want a hypothesis, perhaps we
> have enough information to form the hypothesis that AAB borrowed
> from Leadbeater's E.S. teachings. I'm ready to pursue this
> hypothesis if you are.

Let us put what the traditional science says about hypothesis
aside and just discuss what we wish to accomplish.  What I feel
qualified to discuss is a relative simple question like:
"Are AAB teachings compatible with HPB teachings?" Your
explanation above seems to agree with what I also wish to
accomplish.  The reason that I bring up this question
again and again (which irritates you) is because I have a
habit of keeping the 'objective' in view (in this case
the objective happens to be to ensure compatibility of
HPB and AAB teaching).  May be I should refrain from
making any statement about the conclusions that I draw
from this discussion since we can draw our own (perhaps
different) conclusions from the data gathered or material
discussed.

>      Regarding the Bowen article, I will mail you a copy.

Thanks.  These days I have been reading APSinnett's
Esoteric Buddhism and enjoying every bit.  BTW, you said that
HPB indicates that Devachan is a 'place of gods' and she is at
odds with Buddhism in this.  Deva in Sanskrit means 'god' so
Devachan in Sanskrit probably means a 'place where gods live'
in its literal translation.  Is that not a satisfactory
explanation for HPB's statements on Devachan? I have not
read them so far.

Fraternally,

Arvind