Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00262)

Kim:
>>>I think I will defend the terminology and leave any subtler
>>>points.

JHE:
>> will be interested to learn exactly how you mean this.

Kim
>The basic framework, principles, planes - their order,
>enumeration and relation without for example going into a
>discussion of the after-death experiences of the kama-rupa - the
>subtler points were subjects like analyzing the seven skandhas,
>etc. I am merely concerned about your time.

JHE
Thank you.  I think this is an excellent place to start whether
time is a consideration or not.  I think that a mutual
understanding of the basic vocabulary is a vital prerequisite to
any meaningful communication.  But how are you going to define
these terms without checking them against CWL's writings in order
to assure that you are consistent with him?  If you want to leave
it up to me to supply CWL quotes, that is OK too.  But that
leaves you to draw your quotes from HPB, without really knowing
if they are consistent with CWL.

JHE
>>Perhaps I should mail you copies of CWL's charts--which are
>>quite different, yet you will find some familiar elements in
>>them.

Kim:
>Please do so. It will save me a journey to Copenhagen. I will
>then post my evaluation of them as consistent or not with the
>system of HPB. Or better - I will prepare a table of
>correspondence between the designations.

JHE
Great.  I will make copies over the weekend and send them by air.

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

JHE
>>How can you know this?

Kim:
>I have a very strong case with the material from your initial
>objections and the ES papers of HPB. You can alway bring more
>objections up, but please let us go through the initial ones in
>detail.

JHE
Sounds like you are very confident in your position.  My own
experience has been that to prove even a simple and seemingly
clear cut point to someone with another point of view almost
always requires the submission of at least ten times the evidence
that would have been required to convince someone who is neutral
on the subject.  I've been through this before.  At the bottom of
it, I really don't care whether someone has a different view or
not.  For me, the rewards of this discussion comes from what I
learn during the process.  If you feel that you have a "strong
case," then I will be happy to look at it and give you my
response.  But once I give a response and back it up with
documentation, I don't want to get into a long debate if the
object is merely to convince the other.  Believe me, this type of
debate is grueling, and in my opinion, not worth the effort
regardless of who "wins."  Further, my experience has been that
people form opinions and attitudes for reasons that go beyond the
evidence or any intellectual considerations.  I've learned that
it is almost always better not to interfere with that part of
their lives.

JHE:
>>No doubt some of CWL's ideas are consistent with HPB's.  At
>>least I believe this to be so.  But I'm more concerned with
>>the compatibility of his overall system with HPB's.  This
>>becomes a problem.

Kim
>When we started the discussion I was not aware you intended to
>differ between the system of AB and CWL. A few photocopies will
>be appreciated - or a brief description of the overall system.

JHE
Yes, I'm sure it is a surprise to you, that I make distinctions
between CWL and AB.  However, I did touch upon this subject with
you in private correspondence.  I realize that in theos-l posts,
I normally refer to "neo-Theosophy" or Besant/Leadbeater
Theosophy without indicating a distinction between them.  But,
here I'm coming from a peculiar historical perspective that I
believe justifies me in do so in this context.  But in truth,
Theosophical doctrine changes from period to period.  The neo-
Theosophy I'm referring to above reached its perfection around
1925, and does represent a syncretation of AB and CWL.  This
Theosophy was the one promoted by the ES until about fifteen
years ago.  Radha Burnier and Greg Tillett were the two major
forces that brought about a change, but that is another story.
The reason why I often allude to this neo-theosophy syncretism in
my theos-l posts is because its kama-rupa still haunts the TS,
and I believe that it is a major issue that the members need to
recognize and deal with.
      For the purpose of our more high powered discussion,
however, I think we need to be less superficial and acknowledge
that the public and ES doctrines presented to the members from
1875 to the present are an evolving thing.  From my own
investigation, I divided these expositions of Theosophical
doctrines into five main periods, which in turn have sub-periods,
which I won't go into here:

1. 1875-1885: First introduction of primary ideas primarily
through Blavatsky and Sinnett.  Primary documents: ~Isis
Unveiled~; "Fragments of Occult Truth"; ~Occult World~; ~Esoteric
Buddhism~

2. 1885-1891: Development of Blavatsky's system into a
comprehensive philosophy, and the differentiation from Sinnett's
system.  Development of Subba Row's system.  Primary documents:

3. 1891-1894: Besant's extensive commentary and exposition of
Blavatsky's system.  Primary documents: ~The Seven Principles of
Man~ E.S. Commentaries on Blavatsky's ~E.S. Instructions~ 1-6.

4. 1894-1908: Several stages of the combining of Blavatsky's,
Leadbeater's, Subba Row's and Sinnett's Theosophies a single
system.  Primary Documents: ~Man and his Bodies~; ~The Astral
Plane; ~The Ancient Wisdom~; ~The Self and its Sheaths~; ~Thought
Forms~; ~Man Visible and Invisible~; ~Esoteric Christianity~; The
Devachanic Plane; ~Clairvoyance~; ~Secret Doctrine ("volume
III"); ~A Study in Consciousness.~
      This is the period from which came those charts by Schwarz
that you mentioned in your last post.  It is also in the context
of this period and (to a lessor extent) the next from which I
submit that Alice Bailey drew her information.

5. 1908-1929: Further development and perfection of a new
Theosophy that began in the last period.  Emphases on
discipleship and devotion to Krishnamurti.  Primary documents:
Extensive E.S. material concerning the seven rays, meditation and
consciousness (psychology); ~Man Whence How and Whither~;

      Therefore, when I see a chart or a piece of writing, I
always want to know from the top: 1. Who wrote/made it?  2. What
was the date of writing and which publication? 3. Place of
publication?  4. How does it fit with the author's other
writings? 5. How does it fit with the extant writings at the time
of production and publication? 6. What was the extant of
influence of this work?
      Of course, by asking these questions, I'm taking the much
disparaged "historical view" that is criticized almost on a
weekly bases on theos-l.  It seems that Dan Caldwell and Myself
are the sole contributors that have ever attempted to defend this
approach on theos-l.  Nevertheless, I offer no apologies for this
approach.  It is an accepted one in academia, and has been
endlessly illuminating for me in my Theosophical studies.  This
approach neither denies nor affirms whether Theosophy is a system
sui genius that came to us by progressive revelation.  But it
does show that the nature and depth of information published
about Theosophy changed over the years, and that the nature of
the information published correlates with historical events and
interchanges between the various theosophical writers.  This is
vitally important to realize when looking at the works of
different writers at different periods.  From my perspective, to
disregard the historical context and operate solely out of the
assumption of the existence of an unchanging system is a little
too close to Ireneaus' argument that there are only four Gospels
because there are four pillars supporting the earth, and four
winds.... Theosophy then becomes an item of faith that cannot be
questioned.

JHE
>>How do you define "universal planes"?

Kim
>As states of being external to our solar system.

JHE
      What is the extant of these "universal planes"? Do you have
a term for planes "external" to the "universal planes"?  What do
you call the planes of the solar system?  What do you call the
planes for the earth's system of globes?  What do you call the
planes for the sun's system of globes?  What do you call the
planes where are to be found the human principles?  I'm asking
you these questions to help me understand your meaning when you
use these terms.

JHE
>>What do you mean by "principles" here?  Do you mean the
>>principles of man?  Are you saying that the "universal planes"
>>and the principles of man are the same?

Kim
>No, but "principles" is a term which may be applied to various
>differentiations. *The seven elements ~are~ the seven principles
>of the One element* just as the seven planes or states of being
>may be called the seven principles of being. I often assume
>manifestations to develop from a unity into 3 primary "aspects"
>and 7 secondary "principles".

JHE
      Am I correct in understanding from your above statement that
principles and planes are essentially interchangeable terms?
(Note the part of your statement I starred for emphases).

Kim
>>>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?

JHE
>>Certainly CWL's interpretation.  I think HPB was clear that
>>it was otherwise in Instruction IV, but you say that you read
>>it differently.  I will check for supporting evidence, but I
>>don't believe there is much more one way or the other.

Kim:
>I suggest we start interpreting the statements by HPB relating
>to our subject.

JHE
Yes.  This is what I had in mind for "supporting evidence."

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

JHE
>>I don't follow your meaning here.  Which position?

Kim
>(sorry, this is something like a game of chess to me)
>The idea of the planes of our solar system as being the lowest
>part of seven universal planes. This is clearly described by
>Subba Row and apparent from the ES papers of HPB. In lack of
>clear, direct information we will have to make an initial
>working hypothesis. If both the explanations of HPB and CWL
>will fit our hypothesis - then our hypothesis will have become
>a possible solution.

JHE
      Subba Row in his Lectures on the Bhagavad Gita 1886-87
clearly stated that he rejected HPB's seven principle
classification because it is a "very unscientific and misleading
one" and because the "seven principles do not correspond to any
lines of cleavage, so to speak in the constitution of man" (6).
He also stated that a "considerable portion" of HPB's system is
"almost unintelligible to Hindu minds" therefore he advocated the
"time honored" classification of "four principles" which are
associated with the "upadhis" and are further associated with
"four distinct states of consciousness" (7-8).
      Since Subba Row clearly opposed HPB (There are commentaries
where HPB commented on Subba Row's opposition to her teachings,
but Olcott did not see fit to include HPB's comments on this
matter in Subba Row's ~Esoteric Writings.~  Yet Olcott did select
some of HPB's most conciliatory replies to Subba Row's system.),
it seems inconsistent to invoke Subba Row as an interpreter of
HPB.  I think that it is clear from Subba Row's writings, from
1886 on, that he was trying to outline a system distinctly
different from HPB's.  Subba Row even referred to her as "his
opponent."
      You are welcome to form a hypothetical system for yourself
to harmonize HPB and CWL, but this strikes me as a bit circular.
I make this suggestion because behind your above reasoning is the
a priori assumption that they do harmonize.  I cannot make the
assumption that any occult system harmonizes with any other, let
alone HPB's with CWL's.  Rather, my underlying assumption is that
every writer comes from a unique understanding and expression.
And that even when they are expounding upon someone else's
system, they are merely giving their own interpretation of it,
which may or may not be full of misunderstandings.  Before I
could say that two systems harmonize, I would need to see
internal evidence of the harmony between the systems without
resorting to hypothesizing a third system.  Hypothesizing a third
system just opens the question as to whether that new system was
intended by either party.  At best, such a question is
unanswerable.  To return to my previous example: even though
voodoo is a comprehensive system that embraces Roman Catholicism
and Yoruba Tribal religion, its comprehensiveness is not evidence
that R.C. and Y.T.R. religions were ever originally conceived to
be two parts of such a harmony.  In the case of HPB and CWL, I
believe that even the historical evidence tends to argue against
such a harmony.
      Well, I think six pages are more than enough for now.  I
will get those charts to you.  In the mean time, I have posed
some questions above for you to define.  In those definitions, it
would be better for you to support them with illustrations,
citations and quotes from HPB--and CWL if you can.  My citations
concerning Subba Row's animosity to HPB's system would be an
example.

Best
Jerry

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