Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00099)

Bee Brown writes:

>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.
>

BB
I agree with that but the average person that I was talking about
isn't likely to get into involved discussions on the SD anyway.
They are mostly concerned with their own spiritual growth and
trying to get enough information to understand what is being
talked about in general in their lodge.

JHE
And "what is being talked about in general in their lodge"
depends upon what the material the members are attracted to in
the first place. When I taught "theosophical doctrine" I
always started with Blavatsky because her writings are primary
to all of the others including Judge. If I were teaching
Platonism I would start with Plato for the same reason. I
realize the SD is difficult but with a little guidance I found
that students had little or no trouble with the ~Key to
Theosophy.~

BB
If they are 'mentally lazy' then they won't be interested in
debating the finer points of theosophy. As Liesel said people
learn quickest if they are enthusiastic about what they are
reading and if that is A B then I would rather they did that than
say 'no no' and give them SD.

JHE
I hope Liesel doesn't faint if I say that I agree with her
100% :-. However much of the "enthusiasm" is generated by the
person who is presenting the material i.e. the class leader. If
the group wants to study AB then by all means study AB.
However this is where our perceptions may differ. I don't view
"Theosophy" as a seamless fabric of teachings running from one
writer to another. I see Theosophical teachings changing from
decade to decade sometimes because of fuller explanations
becoming available; sometimes because of more confused
explanations becoming more available; sometime for still other
reasons. But I view theosophical teachings in their historical
context. Therefore when I read HPB then I'm reading what HPB
was writing during such and such a period in her life under such
and such circumstances. When I read CWL then I'm reading what
CWL was writing during such and such a period under such and
such circumstances....

BB
I raved on about de Purucker and how much easier he was to
understand to one of our members who I knew was upset at not
understanding SD and she took his book out. Two weeks later it
was returned and nothing has been said since. As it was one
of his larger books it could not have been read in two weeks.

JHE
Perhaps de Purucker was too difficult also. Or perhaps he
didn't like Purucker's sermonesque style. That is one the of
great things about the theosophical writings we have such a
variety of approaches and styles. Personally I found that I
have to read some chapters of ~Fundamentals of the Esoteric
Philosophy~ three or four times before I felt that I had a
mastery of the points he was making. In my thirty years
experience of teaching theosophy I found that only a small
minority of students are willing to go though that much trouble.

BB
If people want to discuss and they say their source is other than
SD then of course it is debatable how much store to put on their
ideas but even reading SD does not preclude misunderstanding what
HPB meant by what she wrote.

JHE
Amen. I remember a member with whom I used to correspond
proposing to the Lodge that they study the SD. The President at
first resisted then finally consented to share his personal
conversations with M and KH on the SD rather then going through
the trouble of reading it.

BB
So it seems to boil down to each persons interpretation of what
they have read what ever that may be. On this list debate goes
on between persons who are familiar with the same books yet see
things differently. That is good for the rest of us as we then
have to think about it and decide how we each understand it. This
is discrimination at work.

JHE
Right.

JHE
> ~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.
<clip>

MK Ramadoss
It is my recollection that some of the material was serialized in
Adyar Theosophist before they were put in a book form and
published. May be this source should also be checked.

JHE
Are you thinking of "Rents in the Veil of Time"?

> 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

MKR
Before he died Krishnaji held a private discussion session in
which he was questioned and discussed the issue of Spritual
Hierachy and the TS and at some time in the future I hope to
see it published. I do not know if Krishnaji had indicated his
personal preference on publishing the discussion. I believe that
he would never have discussed this issue unless he felt that it
is something on which he has something to say. Let us wait for
its publication. I hope it is not something shocking for some
Theosophists.

JHE
It seems that K had a lot of things to say that might shock
Theosophists. But no one seems to publish them. KFA has stayed
with K's public talks after 1930 but not his more private
remarks. Too bad--the off cut are almost always more
interesting.

Jim Meier writes:
That really wasn't my point however -- whether or not the AAB
writings are "based" in ES material doesn't seem especially
significant. Both Alice and Foster Bailey were TSA members
after all. What does seem significant to me is the validity or
lack thereof of the ideas presented.

JHE
Because I approach occult teachings from a historical
context the succession of ideas from one source to another is
very relevant to me and is very germane to the question of
"validity." I understand AAB and DK's concept about intuitively
grasping the genuiness of teachings. I do that too but my
"intuitive perceptions" lead me down relatively untraveled paths
sometimes because my background is quite different from most
people.

JHE
>[re: Man Whence How and Whither] ... and I think you will
>discover all of the main characters in Bailey's hierarchy
>already outlined.

JM
Fair enough and thanks for the reference. But this doesn't
address the question of rightness does it? I was never clear in
your earlier discussions with Arvin on your position with respect
to AAB "neo-theooosophy" Saraydarian etc. excepting CWL.

JHE
My position was one of an investigator. I was a person
knowledgeable about HPB but less so about AAB. Arvind was
knowledgeable about AAB but less so about HPB. So I proposed a
dialogue and comparison of ideas for our mutual education. As
for "neo-theosophy" I perceive it as a system distinct from pre
1895 theosophy. I don't think Saradarian really entered the
discussions. He used to drop in and out of SD classes I used to
hold and I used to invite him to do public talks at the LA
Branch twice a year. Otherwise I didn't have much contact with
him. He lives in Arizona now.

>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
I wish someone could. : I suspect you're right about the
perceived "rivaly." Most likely there's also a bit of
resentment on the part of the TS regarding the Tibetan's
assertion that the TS had drifted from its original intention to
something of a personality cult ~1930 and a training ground for
probationary disciples. That seems like the sort of thing that
could ruffle feathers.

JHE
I'm sure that is a factor.

JM
RE: Eldon's point on discussing ES material as recounted:
that's a good point. The Bailey texts are published materials
however so it may be possible to look for a "fit" within
theosophy. On the other hand I can remember some particularly
pointed discussions on here regarding CWLeadbeater and he was
accepted within Theosophy sort of anyway by most at least for
a time. Would this be an improper forum for the discussion?

JHE
I think discussion on Bailey have raised objection in the
past with participants arguing that the Arcane school has its
own discussion group. I think the objections were fair enough.
On the other hand comparative discussions of Theosophy and ....
should be fair game.

JHE
>....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..

JM
>Ah I remember that now. I'm not sure it is entirely accurate
>to say Arvin was looking "to win disciples for AAB" but I think
>I get your point.

JHE
I pretty sure that he used the word "disciples."

>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.

JM
I did not expect anyone would question "the right" to post re:
AAB but I'm still wondering if this would be an improper forum.
There is not a lot of Saraydarian material posted on here for
example though he is generally regarded as a theosophical
writer.

JHE
Probably some will object if you used this net as a forum
for Arcane School or Aquarian Foundation Material and I think
rightly so. But in this case you would be posting something in
context to a "theosophical discussion" so I don't see way
anyone would object. In fact several of us have already asked
you to post these ideas.

JM
I was introduced to the AAB texts by friends in the Austin
chapter of the TS in my college days '70s. The Austin group
was highly polarized along generational lines and the younger
set also accepted the Bailey texts. The Austin group doesn't
appear on the chapter list anymore but I do not know when or why
they faded. In one sense I suppose the Bailey influence has
been devisive since the TSA split in the early '20s.

JHE
Yes. There seems to be quite a story here that needs to be
put together and told.

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