Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00067)

 JHE:
>     Your investigation seems to have led you to a personal
>insight into the (in our case) the source texts: i.e. HPB and
>CWL.  I don't think we can avoid drawing from our insights.  It
>is just getting off into tangents that concerns me.

Kim:
   Simply ignore the sidetracks. It will be useful to include these to make
the posts more readable to casual readers. We have agreed to concentrate on
the relation between the systems of CWL and HPB. I will sum the vital
points up at the end of this post. I intend to include remarks relevant to
the subject but outside the boundaries of our rules of discussion. Of
course I may want to support an interpretation with a second opinion.
   If you are concerned about time, then let us simplify the discussion
into a few diagrams and our respective interpretations.

JHE
>     A student borrowed my only copy of ~Cosmic Fire~ and I just
>realized that he never returned it.

Kim:
Really Jerry, 15000 volumes in your library and no "Cosmic Fire"!

JHE:
>So I have to go by memory concerning the charts in that book.  However, if
>my memory is correct, the diagram concerning the principles is either
copied
>or adapted from Besant's ~Study in Consciousness,~ therefore is
>more representative of Besant than CWL.  That you don't have
CWL's books puts you at a disadvantage.

Kim:
  I accept the disadvantage. I have yet to find an esoteric system which
can be understood by merely reading about it. It takes years of
contemplation and affinity with the author. I think I will defend the
terminology and leave any subtler points.
   The diagrams are:
CF., p. 56 -  a chart from "Theosophist", december 1899. Showing the triple
logos, tanmatras, tattvas, planes.

CF., p. 94 - a chart from "Theosophist", january 1900. Also seven planes,
triple logos and tattvas.

CF., p. 1230 - a chart from "Theosophist", december 1899. Showing the seven
Cosmic planes and defining the seventh cosmic as "prakritic"-  the exact
claim I made in my previous post based on a chart by HPB.

   Maybe someone could identify the author of these articles?

JHE:
>I do have some very inexpensive copies if you are interested.  But they
are >Quest printings, and I don't know to what extent they have been
>tampered with.

Kim:
   It will take forever. Your last package shipped months ago did not even
arrive yet (at the mail office they warned me it could take up to 6
months!). I suggest you name page and volume for a short, clear description
of the system - and then I will find a copy. I use an enormous amount of
time to analyze a system of thought and I have no time for such an
investigation at the moment.
   A diagram or two will be enough.

JHE:
>     Perhaps we might start by looking at those various
>"apparently irreconcilable" explanations of HPB.  Actually, my
>experience has been that the apparent inconsistencies disappear
>when they are put back into their historical context.

Kim:
The most "apparently irreconcilable" of all is the various enumerations of
seven principles of man or the universe.It is generally also the favorite
intellectual exercise of theosophists to create such tabulations. It is a
very abstruse subject and it would take years merely to cover all the
material in the works of HPB. I suggest we use diagrams of both authors to
make the subjects clearer to ourself and the readers of this. We can then
add quotes so support the murkier points.

JHE:
>   Once before, I took up a more informal exploratory
>discussion with a person interested in Bailey...............
>     I bring this up, because my investment of time was enormous
>and very little of value came out of it.

Kim:
A standstill will mean that both views can be supported. This I will
consider a victory, since I am on the defending side of this argument  :-)

JHE:
>But even with the most ideal communication, unless the discussion
>remains carefully structured, it easily gets out of hand and
>becomes counter productive.

Kim:
Agreed. See at end of post for main issues.

Kim:
>>If your view was correct we all aught to abandon all the works
>>of not only CWL but also AB, AAB and many 20th century
>>theosophical writers instantly! A few mistakes would be
>>acceptable, but not a completely flawed understanding.

JHE:
>I try not to take such a hard line view.

Kim:
I always do, but fear not: this will not be the result of our discussion.

JHE:
>If HPB and CWL are not compatible with each other, we still have two
>internally consistent systems to study.  Some people might conclude
>that CWL was right and HPB mistaken.

Kim:
My point is that at least some of the ideas of CWL can be prooven
consistent with the system of HPB. Especially the points you hold to be the
weaknesses of his system.

JHE:
>He reasoned that the Devil
>anticipated God's plan to send Jesus to found Christianity, so
>the Devil got in there first and created a false religion that
>looks Christian so as to confuse everybody.  As HPB (later?) on wrote,
>with this kind of logic, the only thing we can do is stand in
>open mouth silence.

Kim:
There certainly seems to be something "devillish" about this line of
reasoning , the inquisitors were adepts at this sort of thing. In terms of
logic
and reasonability the dark age was a kafkian nigthmare

JHE:
>  OK.  I will have to look for your earlier post.

Kim:
The vital points are:

Can the position be held -

a) that our solar system (and hence our planetary chain) are part of the
seventh and lowest part of seven universal planes or principles?

b) that the principles of man are on various planes of existence within
this solar system? And that these seven human principles has a connection
far stronger than a mere correspondence with the seven principles of the
solar system?

c) that both the systems of HPB and CWL (and every other esoteric
philosopher) can be explained satifactory from this position? This is a
subjective interpretation, but the only one possible when the terminologies
are differing.

This should give you something to work on.

In friendship,

Kim