Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00113)

At 040300 AM 12/12/95 -0500 you wrote:
>
>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"?
>

MKRamadoss

Yes. I also think some material could have been published under some
other titles especially around 1909 ?.

>> 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.
>

MKR

The private discussion I refer to above it looks to me as somewhat
formal and I believe it was fully recorded. Hence one of these days we may
see it published; in what form I do not know. But I am very interested in
his comments and it may provide another viewpoint altogether.

>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.
>

MKR

JHE has hit the very important point. I have seen many instances in
which people have tried to use the TS Lodges and Branches as recruiting
ground for their particular group or organization. I have always been on the
look out when such attempts are made and have alerted the audience to be
aware of this. So surely if anyone is trying to use this net as a recruiting
ground then there is going to be some very vehement objections.

>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.

MKR

I was familiar with the Austin group. There was an enthusiastic group of
young people and was hoping that the group will expand. I believe there was
fire in which the building and all the library was burnt down and that ended
the lodge.

>
>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
>|------------------------------------------
>