Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01226)

As my following message was not returned to me, I am reposting it -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Jerry HE:

>1. All statements on our parts must be at least backed up by a
>reference.  Short illustrative quotes are even better.
Agreed.

>2. When discussing HPB's system, the quotes supporting her must
>come from HPB.  Supports from CWL must come from CWL.  Using
>other "authorities" such as, for instance, Bailey, Purucker,
>Subba Row etc. to either support or to not support HPB or CWL
>cannot be acceptable because if raises questions concerning the
>understanding of that "authority."
Agreed. BUT if an explanation can be made that is reasonable and
which reconciles several or all systems it aught to be considered a
valid working hypothesis.

>3. My own bias is that HPB's system is not borrowed from any
>extant Indian system, so I would not find the quoting of this or
>that Indian system to support HPB's system to be acceptable
>either.  If you feel differently, then I would be interested in
>hearing your arguments as to why you might believe that HPB's
>system is borrowed from an Indian system.
   This requires a rather long explanation. I believe strongly that there
exists
such a thing as an ancient "Secret Doctrine", a system common to all
doctrines worthy of being called esoteric. I will not need to supply quotes
for this idea. My bias is that the closest to the system of HPB are not
theosophical writers but the adepts and initiates of history - that these
were
initiated into this same doctrine. Truth cannot be divided among
fundamentally different statements. There are only two possibilities in
this case -
   a) one system is true, and the remainder as differing  - false. If this
is the case how utterly useless to conceive of a synthetic system as the
theosophical with all the historic references.
   b) there is such a thing as esoterism, a hidden, common truth. As the
various systems appear to differ this truth must be hidden. And hidden
because of the value of mental investigation in search of - understanding.
   It is my bias that one adept will explain a thousand times better the
ideas of another adept, whatever their apparent system, rather than any
follower capable of thought-processes like repeating, enumerating, vaguely
analyzing. This was my exact reason for using Shankara to describe the
doctrine of the Buddha (the quote was from Dakshinamurti Stotra 6.10 :-)
    I think I will make a bold statement here.  I will say that in my
opinion the  books of HPB was written in her peculiar style for the very
purpose that students should search out additional information in the
ancient materials she quotes constantly. And that this material almost
constitutes a hidden part of these books.
   Now the corroboration and comparing, the synthetic treatment of the
material and the search for a hidden solution that is my style and modus
operandi. A mind trained in an university generally works in the exact
opposite way. It will isolate each system, break it up in compounds and
search for - building stones.
  As the very object for my joining the dicussion and writing post is to
propose the inner identity of various systems I can now only do it in one
fashion - to enumerate the principles, support them by quotes - and point
to the analogy and correspondence. The same correspondence the authority of
which you have already refuted as an primary mode of investigation - as
"only correspondence not identity."
 Jerry, my friend, you have tied my one hand to the back and.... I accept.
Bring forward the artillery and let us commence.

In friendship,

Kim