Theos-Talk Archives (April 1994 Message tl00027)

Arvind

     I found the rest of your message today.  I'm posting my
reply (written on the 20th) to the first part of your message and
then this, which is a reply to your previous `thread.'


AK> 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).

     This is very interesting.  How far can one go with rejecting
this belief?  Can one throw out the whole Wesak concept
completely and still accept the rest of AAB's teachings?


> 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'.

     This is a very different twist on astrological thinking.
You are saying that at "the new moon, the `spiritual energies'
coming from the Sun and extra-planetary sources are at a low
point..."  Blavatsky and traditional astrological lore would put
the moon at greatest influence when full, and at lessor influence
when new--just the opposite of what you are suggesting here.

     By the way, as long as we are one the subject of the moon--
concerning your statement to Brenda:

     I should point out that Bailey has predicted that the
     twelve periods of full moon during the  calendar year will
     eventually become 'the twelve spiritual festivals',
     celebrated by all of humanity, when the new world religion
     based on invocation and evocation becomes a reality.

     Assuming your statement is not a mis-reading of AAB (or
DK?), she was incorrect here.  A calendar year has 13 lunar
periods--not 12.


JHE >> 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.
>>

AK> 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.

     Paul's assessment of CWL is almost the same as mine, except
I feel that the "unconscious kriyashakti" theory is *probably*
true.  Paul appears to have less reservations about it.  As for
CWL's "`personality problems' preventing him from expressing 100%
of the 'pure light' that he was experiencing in his visions
from the realm of the soul..."  yes I agree.  Using the same
reasoning, I think that Hitler's "personality problems" also
prevented him from "expressing 100% of the 'pure light'..."  Of
course I will grant that there is a big difference here--Hitler's
personality problems caused the lives of some 20 million people,
while CWL just ruined the lives of a hand full of children. But
the principle is the same--they both had personality problems
that were a danger to the well being of others.  It's just a
matter of degree.  Since CWL claimed to be an Arhat--do you think
Hitler might have been a Mahatma?

     You are incorrect in asserting that I discarded Leadbeater's
vision as 'a figment of the imagination' "just because CWL wrote
about it."  As I explained in an earlier communication, I
discarded it because there is no confirmation of this ceremony in
Tibetan Buddhism.  According to Leadbeater, the Tibetans know
about this ceremony.  He offered this `fact' as evidence of the
existence of the ceremony.  Since Tibetans weren't very available
to contradict him in 1910, it was a pretty safe piece of evidence
to put forward.  Now, since the Chinese invasion, Tibetans are
available in droves, and CWL's evidence falls.  Yes, there is a
possibility that `some' of CWL's "so-called 'visionary world' was
real."  There is even a possibility that his vision of Wesak was
real--but the probability is almost nil.

     As for your statement that the "'unconscious kriyashakti'
sounds to me like a power that only spiritually evolved humans
have"--I cannot accept this.  The average person experiences
unconscious kriyashakti every day.  Young children are especially
good at it.  One doesn't have to be "spiritually evolved."


JHE>>   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?

AK> 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.

     In this case, I suggest that you back off of your
speculation concerning AAB being an `extension' and GdeP being an
`expansion' of HPB's teachings until you are in a "position" to
answer my question.


JHE >>  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?

AK> 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.

     There is no way to answer speculations.  On the other hand,
I would not make a speculation more than what it is.  As for your
suggestion that the source of TSD being DK, I thought we had
exploded that idea some months ago.


JHE>>   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 misinterpreting 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.

AK> 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.

     The point I was trying to make in a very diplomatic way was
that you misread my motivations, feelings and the meaning of my
text more often than not.  My friend was only offering a
suggestion as to why you may be doing this.  I suggest that you
put aside your speculations concerning my feelings and
motivations, and concentrate on getting at the meaning of the
text.  Once you get the meaning of the text, you will be in a
better position to speculate on my feelings etc.  However, if my
feelings have any bearing upon what I write, I usually tell you
straight out what they are.  In the case of your beliefs
concerning AAB--no they don't irritate me.  In fact, I think I
have written to you before that I really don't care what your
beliefs are, as long as they are not a source of harm to yourself
or to others.

     However, you did recently succeed in irritating me.  My
irritation concerns the following excerpt from your message to
Paul:

      What are your views on CWL's teachings? Do you agree with
      Jerry H-E that EVERYTHING that CWL wrote is to be
     considered as having arisen out of CWL's imagination, with
     no truth in it?

     Look back on my communications. NOWHERE will you find me
making the statement (or anything even close to it) that
"EVERYTHING that CWL wrote is to be considered as having arisen
out of CWL's imagination, with no truth in it."  When you mis-
read my statements, I become (as I have said before) distressed,
because, I'm trying to find ways to communicate with you so that
you can get my meaning.  But when you misread my statements and
in turn repeat your misreadings as representative of what I
wrote, I become irritated.  I become so, because it very often
happens that mis-quotes are picked up by others who will assume
them to be accurate statements.  Mis-quotes like these are prime
candidates for the theosophical gossip machine.  But I realize
that you are unaware of that dynamic.  "Error runs down an
inclined plane", HPB once wrote.


> 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?

     Yes, Cooper is a "staunch supporter of HPB."  He is also a
very good student of her writings.  As I told you earlier, a mark
of a good student is when they can ask a question like: "how
could HPB say a dumb thing like that?"  Cooper, like all truly
good students of HPB, asks that question.  As for the "fact that
HPB's teaching originated from the Masters", that is your
assumption, which I hope you will soon drop, if you really want
to understand HPB's writings.  As for HPB's compatibility with
Buddhist literature, which Buddhist literature are you referring?
Sinnett's description of after death states in ~Esoteric
Buddhism~ has nothing to do with Buddhism.

AK> As for me, I have got my tickets to India for travel
> from July 6 to July 29!

     Bon voyage!  Our arrangements to go to India fell through,
so we won't be going this year.


 Fraternally,

Jerry Hejka-Ekins