Theos-Talk Archives (April 1994 Message tl00000)

Arvind

JHE>>  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?

AK> 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.

     I'm familiar with what the Wesak festival is.  I read AAB's
discussion of it in her Autobiography many years ago, and we
attended one or two of them when we lived in Los Angeles.  My
question was one that asks for an evaluation on your part--how
important is the Wesak festival in the AAB teachings?


AK> 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 an extensive amount of information in HPB's
writings concerning cycles and the moon in TSD and elsewhere.  I
correlated that all together about twenty years ago, and used to
teach it as part of an "esoteric astrology" module, when I taught
astrology classes in the early 70's.  My reading of HPB is that
she follows the ancient idea that cycles begin with the new moon-
-not the full.  Even GdeP followed this lead in his teachings,
using the new moon--not the full as the ideal starting point of
calendars and of initiation cycles.  This reasoning probably has
something to do with the "pernicious influence" of the moon
mentioned in letter 15 of the Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett.
As I said earlier, the Wesak festival as described in AAB's
Autobiography and in ~The Masters and the Path~ is fully
Leadbeater's teaching.  You will not find this ceremony anywhere
in Tibetan Buddhism--though Leadbeater wants you to believe that
it is there, and known by the Tibetan Buddhists.


AK> 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?

     Yes, I have a copy of this or a similar pamphlet.  The
description in the ~Masters and the Path~, in my opinion, is
substantially the same as the one given in AAB's Autobiography.
The Material in the ~Masters and the Path,~  including the Wesak
description, was part of Leadbeater's ES teachings (not HPB's),
and would have been easily accessible to AAB during the time of
her stay at Krotona.  Since, there is no confirmation in Tibetan
Buddhist literature concerning this ceremony, my opinion is that,
Leadbeater dreamed the whole thing up--like he did so many other
teachings.  Whether or not he himself believed what he taught, I
can't say for sure, though my guess is that he might have been at
least partly a victim of his own "visions."  Therefore my doubts
extend far beyond whether or not Leadbeater's description of the
ceremony is accurate, I don't believe the ceremony that
Leadbeater speaks of takes place at all.  If you have any
evidence to the contrary, I'm anxious to see it.


JHE>>  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?

AK> 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).

     I see the situation as being much more complex then this.
For example, let us assume that HPB said nothing about the lunar
periods as you suggest here (this is not really true, but I'm
using your example to illustrate a point).  But let us say that
she does give ample information concerning the role of the moon
in planetary and human evolution, as well as in symbolism and
mythology (which she indeed does).  I would then take AAB's "new"
teaching concerning the moon and ask how it fits in with
everything else we know about the moon, in both HPB's teachings
and in light of modern knowledge.  Thus, even though AAB's
teaching may be an "extension,"  there is still ample *related*
material in HPB's writings and in modern science to compare and
make an evaluation.  In the light of my above explanation, can
you tell me which of HPB's teachings are AAB's "rules" supposed
to be extensions of?


[Regarding Purucker]:
JHE>> 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.

AK> 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).

     No, I don't see it this way, for the reason I just gave
above, when we were discussing AAB's teachings on the moon.  One
thing I really like about HPB is that she never puts her readers
into a position where they have to take anything on "faith
(though many readers do that anyway--but this is laziness on the
reader's part, and not HPB's fault)."  If TCF is an "extension"
of TSD, then I would expect to be able to evaluate it using the
same rules that are used to evaluate HPB's writings.  Is this
asking too much?


JHE>>  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.

AK> 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.

     Did I tell you that I was "irritated?"  What makes you
believe that you can "read" my feelings in this text?  If we had
met, and we had spent some time together, I could understand how
you might be in a position to surmise my feelings--though you
still may be incorrect.  The reason this catches my interest is
because of a conversation I had last weekend at Krotona with a
friend who has been following this dialogue.  She expressed her
opinion that the reason you are constantly misjudging and
misintrepreting what I write, is because you have no knowledge of
the "personality" that is behind this written text--and thus
attribute motivations and feelings that are not there.  My
friend, who knows me very well, says that when she reads my text,
she also "hears" my "voice."  Because she knows me as a person,
she has a "sense" of my intentions (and perhaps sometimes
feelings) that are behind the text.  From reading your responses,
she is very aware that my intentions are very different than
those you often surmise.

     Now, to address the main issue you raised above:  Yes, a
question like "Are AAB teachings compatible with HPB teachings"
is acceptable, though I prefer the original and slightly broader
question that I originally posed: "How do HPB's and AAB's
teachings compare."  The reason why I prefer the original
question is because we can look at broader issues than
"compatibility,"  and not be shackled into an either/or
situation.  As far as your "objective,"  which you state is "to
ensure the compatibility of HPB and AAB teaching"  this is not at
all acceptable to me.  It is the same as saying--"I'm going to
investigate whether HPB's and AAB's teachings are compatible, but
there is only one acceptable conclusion that I will allow myself
to come to--which is that they are compatible."  With this
"objective," why bother to make an investigation at all?  The
only possible motivations that I can think of are that this is an
opportunity for you: 1. to convert others over to the AAB
teachings; 2. and to practice learning arguments to defend AAB
against any criticism.  Are these your motivations?


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


AK> Thanks.  These days I have been reading AP Sinnett'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.

     Not according to authorities in this field.  One of the
authorities who was emphatic that HPB was wrong was W.Y. Evans-
Wentz.  I once heard a recorded interview where he discussed this
at some length, but it has been too many years since I heard this
recording for me to feel comfortable repeating his arguments.  A
more recent conversation I had on this subject was with John
Cooper when he was in this country a few years ago.  He lectures
on Buddhism at the University of Sydney, and I consider him quite
knowledgeable on the subject, though not an "authority" in the
sense that Evans-Wentz is, he is more knowledgeable than the
latter on theosophy.  John is also the compiler of HPB's
collected letters, that will be published in a few years.  He
considers HPB's definition to be quite an embarrassment.  If you
want to take the time, there are a lot of current works on
Buddhism easily available, where you can research it for yourself
As for "deva" it has many more meanings than "god."  But the
issue, has more to do with the meaning of "chan" and the actual
origin of the word "devachan,"  which is not a Sanskrit term, as
HPB says, but Tibetan, and means "the happy place,"  not "the
abode of the gods."  The Sanskrit equivalent of Devachan,
according to Evans-Wentz is "sukhavati."

     Regarding ~Esoteric Buddhism,~ which edition are you
reading?

     Tonight begins my ten day Spring Break.  I spent over five
hours meeting individually with my students, after teaching the
class, and I'm drained.  Who says teaching isn't a real job?  I
put in eight hours for every one I get paid.  Now, I get to spend
the next ten days researching and writing three papers, as well
as preparing three others for publication.  "No rest for the
wicked" they say.


Fraternally,

Jerry Hejka-Ekins