Theos-Talk Archives (April 1994 Message tl00024)

Jerry H-E,

Here is my belated response to a previous 'thread'(my
response was delayed as I had lost a partial reply, as
I indicated before).

>      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?

The Wesak festival is considered of major importance in
AAB teachings, but a belief in the ceremony as described
by AAB/CWL is not a critical requirement for accepting the rest
of the Bailey teachings (esp. those which are dictated by the
Tibetan).

>      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.
>
Bailey explains that the period of full moon is important
because moon is 'out of the way', allowing for a direct alignment
between the Sun and the Earth during this period.  The period
of the new moon is also considered important by AAB; new
moon meditation focuses on "Discovering the Memebers of the
New Group of World Servers and Strengthening their Hands".
At the time of the new moon, the 'spiritual energies'
coming from the Sun and the extra-plenatary sources are at
a low point, hence the need to link up in spirit with other
servers in an effort to 'strengthen their hands'.

>
>      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.
>
I sure donot have any evidence to corroborate Bailey/CWL
description of the ceremony. I must refer here to a quote from
a recent message from Paul Johnson, where he says that
'As for CWL, I adhere to Tillett's theory of "unconscious
kriyashakti"-- that is that CWL's belief in his visionary world
was so intense that he could actually induce experiences in
others that led them to believe in its reality.'

Is there not a possibility that at least some of CWL's so-called
'visionary world' was real?  The 'unconscious kriyashakti' sounds
to me like a power that only spiritually evolved humans have
(this reminds me of the accounts of many persons who have
indicated that their 'Guru touched them, and they were able to
see a whole different world on the inner planes'.)  It is
quite possible that CWL had a lot of 'personality problems'
that prevented him from expressing 100% of the 'pure light'
that he was experiencing in his visions from the realm of
the soul; the point is that we should not discard something
as definitely 'a figment of the imagination' just because
CWL wrote aboout it.  If his account of something (say the
Wesak ceremony) agrees with that given by another person
(Bailey in the case of Wesak), I'd be willing to entertain
the possibility that his account holds some truth.


>
>      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?
>
I follow your position but am not in a position to answer your
question on the correlation of HPB teachings with AAB rules.
This is a rather tall order, for which I am not ready at the
moment.  As I read HPB's works, I'll hope to point out where
the similarities (or differences) are.

>      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?
>
There is no doubt that the writing styles of Bailey and HPB
are quite different.  HPB's writing has extensive references
and meets the modern day rigorous 'academic' standards
whereas most AAB writing is basically written along the
lines of a 'spiritual revelation', which one has to
accept as a hypothesis initially (until proven by individual
effort or experience).  It is legitimate to ask the question
as to why two different styles were chosen for the writing
if the source of the teaching is the same ("DK").  I donot
claim to have the answer to this question but there is speculation
that HPB's writing style itself may have been an 'experiment' by
the Hierarchy.  Although you (and several others) prefer HPB's
presentation of the material with extensive references, many others
want to have the 'pure teaching' transmitted, without the burden
of comparison with other (esp. 'profane') teaching or works.

I myself am very interested to see verification of AAB teaching
in the light of say 'Vedanta'.  With that in mind, I had given
a few of AAB's books ('Problems of Humanity', 'Light of the Soul')
to a local Swamiji, whose cursory reaction was that it seemed
very similar to the Vedanta teaching.  However, neither he nor
anyone else that I know has undertaken a comprehensive
examination of the AAB teaching as compared to Vedanta or
Buddhist literature, so a verdict must await until this is done
(I have no idea when, but I am very interested in doing it
if I get a chance, perhaps somewhat later on in life,
possibly during an early retirement period!)


>
>      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.

Thanks for pointing this out.  Yes, I am guilty of (mis)judging
your motivations and feelings, based on my experience with
what comes through the writings of others and the use of
the English language in general.  I'll point out the words
which lead me to my inference next time I sense 'feelings'
coming through your e-mail.

>      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?
>

It has never been my objective to convert others over to AAB
teachings or to practice learning arguments to defend AAB
against criticism.  AAB's teachings stand (or fall) on
their own.  No one (not me, not anyone else) can 'save'
them if they are untrue or unfounded.  I may be guilty
of not using the English language properly, but my intention
on this listserver has only been to find out why the mainstream
theosophists donot seem to care for AAB teachings.  I had
this question when I joined the listserver.  Thanks to this
dialogue with you, I know of several reasons for this. And my
conclusion, based on the dialogue so far is that there are
several (healthy, good) reasons why it is not necessary
for many to investigate AAB teaching.  For me, some of
my best lessons in life have come from AAB teachings, but
I am going to postpone judgement on several 'speculatory'
type of AAB teachings to a future time when I know more.
>
>      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."

I am quite surprised to hear that John Cooper considers HPB's
definition of devachan to be an embarrassment.  I know him as
one of HPB's staunch supporters.  How do you (or
how does he) reconcile this with the fact that HPB's
teaching originated from the Masters?  Is the rest of the
HPB teaching fully compatible with the Buddhist literature
(against which her definition of 'devachan' is judged)?  I'd be
very interested in reading the Buddhist view of devachan.
To be perfectly honest with you, someone gave me two tapes
(recorded by Richard Gere) on the 'Tibetan Book of the Dead'
which I found quite difficult to understand.  Is there any
other reference for the Buddhist view of afterdeath states?
Is APSinnett's description of afterdeath states in 'Esoteric
Buddhism'(Wizard Edition) also wrong?

I had also sent you another message some 10 days back,
which you have not replied so far.  I assume you
have gotten busy with your work at the University again.
As for me, I have got my tickets to India for travel
from July 6 to July 29!

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Fraternally,

Arvind