Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01245)

Kim Poulsen:

>As my following message was not returned to me, I am reposting
>it

     Thanks. I never saw the original message.

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

KP
>Agreed.

JHE
>>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."

KP
>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.

JHE
     A "reasonable" explanation may be a reconciliation of
seeming contradictions between different writers, or it could be
an attempt to syncretise two different systems into a
comprehensive whole.  A classic example of syncretism was the
combining of Roman Catholicism with the religion of the Yoruba
tribesmen who were imported as slaves in this country up to 150
years ago.  The resulting religion is called Voodoo, and is quite
different from each of its parents.  Yet voodoo is a reasonable
and comprehensive religious system within itself.  Personally, I
don't see a rational way to tell a reconciliation from a
syncretism, and I suspect that our intuitions might differ here.
Further, I would be inclined to think that the bringing in of
outside authorities would just complicate things and run the
discussion into tangents.

JHE
>>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.

KP
>   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 -

JHE
     I think were have the same thought here, but I made a poor
choice of words.  My dictionary defines "extant" as still
existing, which is not what I had in mind.  A better choice of
words for me would have been "exoteric"  or "popular" Indian
system.  Though truth can be found in every great religion, the
Maha Chohan also pointed out that all religions are also 3/4
superstition.

KP
>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 :-)

JHE
     I tend to agree with you here--I think your use of Shankara
was appropriate in the context you had used it.  However, in the
context of this discussion, the question at hand is whether CWL's
system is representative of HPB's, and whether they are
compatible (without syncretism).  If we use CWL's writings to
explain HPB, then the whole inquiry becomes meaningless.

KP
>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.

JHE
     Once again I agree with you.  I think the works that she
endlessly cited in her writings were put there for people to make
their own investigations of her points.  However, I'm sure that
you have looked into some of these books, and noticed as I had,
that among the gold often lies a lot of nonsense.  For instance,
O'Brian's ~Round Towers of Ireland~ contains some genuine
intuitions mixed with rabidly racist attitudes that I think HPB
would have shuttered to have introduced into her Theosophical
doctrines.

KP
>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.

JHE
     Again, I agree.  However, I think one must begin with
gaining a firm grasp on the concepts that HPB does introduce, so
that when a further search is done, the seeker has a firm
background for comparison and contrast.

KP
>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.

JHE
     I also have to operate by the same restrictions, so if one
hand has been tied to your back, then it is also so with me.  As
for the "correspondence," I was using HPB's word.  By a
dictionary definition, a correspondence is not an identity.  The
British Parliament does correspond to the American Congress, but
they are not the same thing.  After watching televised sessions
of Congress and of Parliament, the differences were even more
than I had suspected :-)
     Analogies are even more tricky, and HPB warns in the SD
against the making of false analogies.  Analogies are helpful in
understanding how things work:  A heart to a pump; an eye to a
lens.  But a heart does not have a piston inside of it, nor does
a pump operate by muscular contractions of its walls.

KP
>Bring forward the artillery and let us commence.
>
>In friendship,
>
>Kim

JHE
     OK.  But I have made it difficult for both of us.  It takes
time to look up and confirm quotes.  Since I'm also working on my
thesis and several other projects, I my not get back to you very
quickly in all cases.
     Whether or not anything is resolved, I'm sure the discussion
will be a learning experience for both of us--and process will
probably be tough but satisfying because of its skill building
potential.

Best
Jerry

------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------