Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00777)

For those of you who have successfully waded through Parts I, II and III,
I hope Part IV will be more concise and to the point.

Thanks for the input on Parts I, II and III from Rich and Eldon.

In light of all that I have written in the first three parts, I would now
like to quote what Jerry HE previously wrote:

>...we tried to promote a historically based general definition of source
material that focuses upon the period before the splits, when this material
>was being given out for the first time. Therefore, this period is common
>history for everybody.

Jerry HE writes:"...when this material was being given out for the first time"
When was this? I believe in the previous 3 parts I have somewhat shown that
it was HPB who shows up on the public scene in late 1874 and starts the
process of giving out the "source material" which she said emanated from
her Lodge, from her Masters. In July, 1875, when she wrote her "first
occult shot" Olcott knew virtually nothing about the "source teachings"
except what HPB had started to give him. Judge, Mavalankar, Sinnett,
Subba Row, Leadbeater and Besant had not even meet HPB! Each in turn
had a fateful day when they heard of and met HPB. She was the source, the
channel through which each of them obtained their initial knowledge and
understanding of Theosophy and the Masters. And during all these 16 and 1/2
years of her public work, HPB was giving out the "source teachings"
of Theosophy. Furthermore, had for example Annie Besant never become
a Theosophist, we would still have Theosophy as given by HPB. If
Judge or Sinnett had never come into contact with HPB or if they had
become students of Theosophy but had never written a word on the
subject, we would still have "the souce teachings" as given through
HPB. This should be totally obvious to everyone on theos-l and some
may wonder why I am belaboring the point. Historically speaking, HPB
was the source, i.e. "the point at which something springs into
being", for Theosophy as we know it in modern times.

Moving on.....

HPB came first; each of the individuals name above came later. Now I am
not saying that Olcott, Judge, Mavalankar, Sinnett, Leadbeater and Besant
did not make contributions to the Theosophical work that HPB had originally
started. But they built on her original foundation, they followed in her
footsteps.In theory at least, had none of these individuals ever written any
thing on Theosophy, the "source teachings" as given by HPB would still be
available.

Jerry HE writes: "...we tried to promote a historically based general
definition of source material that focuses upon the period BEFORE [caps added]
the splits [occurred]....]

When did the splits occur? One split that Jerry HE is probably referring to
is the split between Besant and Judge. But there was a split as early as
1886 when A.P. Sinnett sought communication with the Masters through a *source*
other than HPB. Basically, Sinnett was put into contact with the Masters
through letters in Oct. 1880. But in 1884, he started to resent what the
Masters were telling him in their letters. He began to have doubts about
HPB and sought in 1886 to hypnotise Maude Travers and gain access to Master
K.H. through this woman. Actually Sinnett had tried this very same thing
in the summer of 1884 with Laura Holloway! Sinnett's seeking for a source
to the Masters other than thorough HPB, lead finally to that famous K.H.
letter to Olcott in August, 1888. (See Letter 19 in *The Letters of the
Masters of the Wisdom*First Series.)

Yes, I agree that Olcott, Judge, Mavalankar, Sinnett, Subba Row, Leadbeater
and Besant may have made valuable contributions to Theosophy BUT whatever
they accomplished was built upon the foundation of "source teachings" FIRST
given by H.P. Blavatsky.

And when the split between Judge on one side and Besant/Olcott on the other
side started and culminated in 1893-1995, both sides claimed contact with
the Masters and the deceased HPB. Then the Theosophical Society was
splintered. Who was in the right and who was in the wrong, is not
easy to determine.

I have file folders of letters from serious Blavatsky students. Some believe
Besant and Olcott fell by the wayside and Judge remained faithful to the
Source. Others believe Judge fell by the wayside as well as Olcott and Besant.
Others say Judge failed but Besant continued the orginal Blavatsky tradition.
etc., etc., etc. etc. Claims and counter claims....what a mess!

And I believe HPB foretold this in her Letter to the Fifth Annual Convention
of the American Section of the T.S just before she died. See the very bottom
of p. 171, the full page 172 and ending on p. 173 of HPB's Collected WRitings,
Vol. 13.

Jerry HE writes: "Therefore, this period [before the splits] is common
history for everybody."

I would amend this to read: Therefore, this period BEFORE HPB died is
common history for everybody. HPB was the first to come on the public stage
and give the source teachings in 10,000 + pages of writings plus the letters
of the Masters during HPB's life. The Theosophists I have mentioned above
came on the scene sometime after HPB. They may have all been sincere,
truth seeking individuals and all may have made to a greater or lesser
degree valuable contributions (literary or otherwise) to HPB's work, but
especially after her death, claims and counter claims arose. Those
who believe in HPB's claims and teachings have a common source
teaching to focus on, regardless of the truth and validity of the
secondary "sources" and claims of some of HPB's students.

Now, I am not implying or saying that the source teachings and the Masters
only spoke through HPB. After her death and even today other agents *may*
have come forth. That is, genuine agents from HPB's Masters. Unfortunately,
you cannot get a room of serious Blavatsky students from diverse Theosophical
backgrounds to agree on who that person or agent was or is!

I would prefer to focus on the writings of HPB and the Letters of the Masters
which from the perspective I have been outlining above I consider the
SOURCE Teachings of modern day Theosophy. Here is a body of material that
contains more than enough for serious inquirers, seekers and Theosophists.
Later Thesophists *may* have made valuable additions to that source material.

I will stop at this point. I probably have repeated myself too much!

All of the above is written as food for thought.

Daniel Caldwell