Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00500)

Jerry Schueler,

JS
>What we really need, it seems to me, is experience, which
>means living the teachings rather than just thinking about them.
>When we live them, dogma evaporates. But we still need doctrine
>because our human mind still has a need to explain/express our
>experiences in terms of visual and analytical models that we can
>understand and communicate. People "in charge of our
>organizations" should be living examples of theosophy.

JHE
 Yes. Very well said.

JHE
Jerry HE:<That would have to be discussed since it represents am
assumption that probably contrasts with those held by the HPB
student. >

JS
This brings up a very important issue that goes to very heart
of "source teachings" versus secondary or neo teachings. If
Purucker, or anyone else, expands on HPB without contradicting
her, then why would this cause any problems with "the HPB
student?" Are you of the opinion that if HPB didn't say it, it
can't be true? Anything not spoken by HPB is false? It seems to
me that by expanding her 7-globe 4-plane model into a 12-globe
7-plane model, for example, does not conflict with what HPB says
and so where is the problem? This is especially true in light of
the fact that she admitted to holding some teachings back.

JHE
 Of course "the HPB student" I mentioned in my discussion is
a hypothetical one--an averaging out (if I can offer a loose
term) of the many that I have met over the years. It had been my
experience the straight HPB students tend to reject Purucker--
particularly the more conservative students that have been
trained by ULT. As for my own opinions, they are quite
different--I don't fall under the category of "the HPB student"
that I made. Speaking for myself, I read and have read Purucker,
Leadbeater, Bailey, Fortune etc., and try to read then upon their
own merits. Therefore, I only measure them up against HPB when
they claim to be consistent with her. When they say that, I put
them to the test. I have just finished a book entitled ~Psychic
Initiation Secrets of 777~ by a Mark MacDougall. He begins by
saying that Blavatsky's system was incomplete, Bailey's teacher,
DK, was confused on many points, Leadbeater copied Bailey, the
Mahatma Letters were written by Blavatsky, and Fortune was trying
to get to much information into to little space. He strongly
implied that he has a deeper understanding of cosmology and
esoteric psychology then the above writers and had stated that he
had been in personal contact with the Master Jesus. The book was
a good read, but I found no extraordinary depth of understanding
in it, and on several points, gross misunderstandings. I
approached the book by trying to determine his system and how it
is different from the other authors. Then I tried to determine
his source of information. Since the book had end notes, this
was easy to determine. Since I was already familiar with most of
the books he used, it was easy for me to see just how he went
about drawing from and organizing information from these other
writers into his own system. Would I criticize this book on the
grounds that it disagrees with Blavatsky? No. But I would point
out areas were he got his information confused, and I would point
out areas where he adopted other writers opinions as his own
without questioning or analyzing them.
 Concerning your question about expansions of Blavatsky's
seven globes into twelve--I have taught this on occasion, but
when I do, I'm very careful to make it understood that the twelve
globe scheme came from Purucker--not Blavatsky. Whether it is
correct or not is something I leave up to my students to decide.
As for my personal opinion--I find that it resolves questions
left open by HPB's scheme and may very well be correct. On the
other hand, Purucker's teachings concerning the historical Jesus
appears to contradict what HPB writes on the subject. I have
raised this question to many Purucker students, including some
who had studied directly under Purucker, and I'm yet to get an
answer resolving the contradictions. The best answer I ever
received was from W. Emmett Small, who said that he didn't know
but that the subject should be explored through further
discussion with other Purucker students. I agree with him, but
so far, I have been unsuccessful in finiding any Purucker
students willing to discuss the subject to any extent. The
discussion always degenerates into a discussion on faith--that
they have faith that Purucker is right. That is fine for them,
but since I don't operate on their faith, I'm left with the same
questions.

(???)
Jerry HE:<>>We examine the differences then make a choice. It's a
separate choice as to *which* individuals are representatives of
the Masters. >

JS
 Unfortunately, one can represent the Masters in one subject
while totally screwing up another subject. So, our
discrimination must go farther than that between people; we also
need to discriminate between the writings of the same individual,
and yes, I am thinking about CWL here.

JHE
 I agree with you here in principle. However, your quote
did not come from me. It sounds very much like something that
Eldon would write, and your comment probably should be directed
to him. The phrase "We examine..." is very much his writing
style. Eldon likes to use "we" where I always use "one." On the
other hand, I can't be absolutly sure that it came from Eldon
either. Please let me know the date and title of the message
that you got this quote from so that we can track it down.

Thanks

Jerry HE

------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins
 ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and
CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org
|------------------------------------------