Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00668)

Dan Caldwell writes:

>(1) Concerning the pamphlet "The Story of the Mahatmas Letters"
>by Jinarajadasa mentioned by Alan Bain, I believe this pamphlet
>is still in print. Those in America or Canada who would like
>copies should probably call Theosophical Publishing House,
>Wheaton, Illinois. They have a toll free number at 1-800-
>669-9425. If it is out of print, maybe Jerry HE has copies for
>sale?

 Sorry, no copies on hand for sale. However, if the pamphlet
is out of print, we will be happy to supply xerox copies to
anyone interested for .05 per page plus postage. For this
pamphlet, that would be $1.35. Our archive copy is dated 1946,
and published in Adyar. We will do this for any other pamphlet
on file also.

>(2) Those interested in obtaining a copy of PARAdoxes of the
>Highest SCience in which K.H.'s remarks on the role of women
>occurs can obtain a copy of the 1931 (?) TPH Adyar Edition from
>Health Research in California. I don't have their address in
>front of me. Jerry HE can you help out?

 Health Research was bought out about three years ago and now
has an address in Las Vegas:

 P.O. Box 19420
 Las Vegas NV 89132

>From a historical perspective, I would say that HPB's writings
>and the letters of the Mahatmas constitute such "source
>teachings" but I would not include Mr. Judge's works.

[bunch deleted)

>And as I said at the beginning of this posting, I am not
>denigrating W.Q. Judge's writings. But in historical fairness,
>should we not, at the >very least, also include Annie Besant's
>early Theosophical writings if we want to include Judge's in the
>"source teachings" category.

 I think the concept of source writings can be defined in any
number of ways--each one as valid as the other, and yours is a
good one too. A further supporting argument to your definition
that leaves off Judge might be argued that he did not add
significantly to the body of theosophical teachings given out by
HPB and the Mahatmas, but rather mostly restated what was already
published. On the whole I would agree with this, but he also did
(IMHO) make some significant contributions, particularly in his
writings concerning psychism. Accepting your argument that
including Judge also means including Besant's early writings, I
would add that we might also then be obliged to include Sinnett's
early writings, since they were based upon the Mahatmas.
 Also, as you already hinted, each organization may also
define a canon of source writings: for instance the Pasadena
Society would include Purucker as source for their Organization,
but would reject Besant. ULT would reject Purucker but accept
Judge. Adyar would accept Besant but has had a long standing
policy of rejecting Judge. As I had argued in an earlier post,
the motivations behind these definitions are obviously political.
By defining a canon, each organization in effect affirms the
validity of their line thus implying the error of the others.
Therefore in 1984, we tried to promote the definition of source
writings to be those of the founders;. i.e. Blavatsky, Mahatmas,
Judge, Olcott (for what ever he might have contributed to the
theosophical philosophy), and theoretically to the fourteen
others as far as what they may have contributed to the teachings.
By doing this, we were affirming the very group of writers that
every organization has in common in their historical roots. The
definition has historical validity, and at the same time
underlies the elements of unity of the TM rather than the
fragmentation as defined by the secular organizations. In the
name of networking, we have been proposing that we adopt this
usage, not because it is necessarily more valid than another
definition, but because it would bring us another step towards
solidarity in the TM.

Glad to see you back on line.

Peace

Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu