Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00041)

Jim Meier writes:
Thanks for your comments/interpretation of Brant Jackson's letter
--I wish more people were concerned with logical fallacies.

JHE
Thanks for reading them. Whenever there are bylaw changes the
basic structure of the Organization will always be affected. It
is vitally important for members to carefully scrutinize these
changes and not assume that the administration is necessarily
acting in the best interests of the membership. I believe that
the current bylaw changes are the most critical concerning the
abridgment of the rights of members and Branches that I have ever
seen--and I've been in this Organization since 1963.

JM Quotes JHE and comments:
>"... the main parts of Bailey's teachings come from ES material
>extant between 1912 and 1918. Almost none of this has ever been
>published except some that is in CWL's books ..."
>
>That rather takes the thread into a conversational cul-de-sac
>does it not?

JHE
Indeed it does take "the thread into a conversational cul-de-sac"
when I make a statement that cannot be backed with evidence. But
what evidence can I reasonably be expected to offer to back up
this statement? It would be useless to cite ES material
published between 1912 and 1918 because it is unlikely that you
or anyone on this net has access to any of this material to check
my statements against. Even most living ES members don't have
this material because all they get is what is current at the
time they join. But on the off chance that you do have this
material then I will give you the citations. If you are an ES
member then you can take a trip to Adyar where there is a
special archive of all ES material. All you have to do is apply
for permission from Radha to see it. But getting permission from
her is by no means guaranteed. If you get permission then I
understand that you have access for a maximum of two hours per
day. The only public *clue* that I can think of at the moment is
published in a very scarce work by F.T. Brooks entitled
foreword:

Moreover I must confess that some of the later findings of
those psychic diggings in the Earth's past history have been
to my mind far more interesting and on the while more
consistent than any fiction that I have yet set eyes on.
And I refer mainly to matters yet unpublished but which
will I believe soon be published under the title: "~Man
How Whence and Whither~" p viii.

~Man Whence How and Whither~ was published in 1913. Read
through as early an edition as you can find and I think you will
discover all of the main characters in Bailey's hierarchy already
outlined.

JM
>Can you explain *why* ES members are "warned" about Bailey?

JHE
I wish I could. Reasons are not given that I know of. My guess
is that the Arcane school is regarded as a rival organization.

JM
About 18 months ago you had an interesting series of
conversations with Arvind Kumar regarding the Bailey teachings
but I don't recall reading anything "from the ES perspective."

JHE
That is because Arvind knew nothing of the ES teachings for that
period so there was no basis for a discussion here. I do
remember mentioning the ES connection during those conversations
and receiving a long response from Eldon Tucker questioning
whether or not I should discuss "classified" ES material on a
public forum.

JM
Most of the posts seemed to be focussed on the potential for
cross-referencing the Bailey material with "standard"
Theosophical texts rather than discussing the ideas themselves.

JHE
Yes. That is as far as we were able to get. We agreed that
HPB's writings predated AAB's and that AAB considered her
writings to be extensions of HPB's. Therefore we agreed that it
would be reasonable to compare AAB's ideas to HPB's and check for
consistency. But before we got into the examination of the
ideas Arvind admitted that his real agenda was to win disciples
for AAB not to examine the writings. Shortly after that he
announced that he found another spiritual leader that required no
reading or study and was no longer interested in Theosophy or
the Bailey teachings and would only discuss the teachings of his
new spiritual teacher. That was the last I heard of him.

JM
If you or someone could direct me to the archives section where
you earlier posted re: Bailey and the ES I would appreciate it.

JHE
John Mead: jem@vnet.net has all of those details. You will need
to know the dates. My recollection was that the discussion ran
from the summer of 93 through the first months or so of 94. I
have them archived on a separate disk--more or less complete and
could upload them to you but the file is over 1.33 million
bytes.

JM
PS: I would post Bailey's seven "new ideas" for the benefit of
those unfamiliar with the writings of Alice A. Bailey and the
Tibetan Djwhal Khul but I'm afraid of being expelled from
cyberspace. :

JHE
I would be very interested in those ideas and would defend VERY
LOUDLY your right to post them.

Bee Brown:
If Theosophy was not so protective of their right to be the only
organization who can decide who speaks on behalf of our Elder
Brothers we all might live in peace together and let all of us
pursue our individual studies under their umbrella. If we can
develop our inner knowing I am sure guidance from within will
sooner or later put us back on the right road.

JHE
Remember Krishnamurti's "Truth is a pathless land" speech that he
gave in 1930? That was protest against the "spiritual authority"
held by the TS at the time. Van der Leeuw was alluding to this
in that pamphlet I posted a few months ago when he said that
when K made a statement that the Theosophical leaders did not
agree with then it came from K. But when he said something they
agreed with it came from the World Teacher. Van der Leeuw
observed that it seems that everyone except K knew when the World
Teacher was speaking through him and when He was not. Well the
paradigm shift that K tried to put in place in 1930 has finally
happened though sixty years late. Radha likes K's and takes his
"non authoritative" approach seriously. Now if she would only
stop requiring new ES members to pledge obedience to her....

BB
>From what I can see the majority of branch members do not study
the SD anyway because it is too hard for them.

JHE
Too bad because HPB says that the SD is an outline of the
esoteric philosophy. On the other hand she said in the ~Key~
"To the mentally lazy or obtuse Theosophy must remain a
riddle..." xi.

BB
Why not allow them to get their sustenance from sources they can
understand and if that turns out to be A B so what?

JHE
I have no problem with that. But those who claim to understand
the SD because they have read what AAB CWL AB ect. said about
the SD but find the SD itself too difficult to read--then I
think they have a problem.

Jerry HE
International Theosophist

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