Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00292)

Dear Jerry, to make the discussion more readable I think I will
answer your letter in parts. Thank you for going into detail. As stated
earlier I will bring in supporting material outside the rules of the
discussion, which you can just ignore.

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"

  I have earlier explained on Theos-l (ABC+D thread, january) what the
differences arose from. On p. 607 of CW XII you will find the true
explanation in the diagram with the sentence: "..these Four and Three have
been called Seven Principles, to faciliate the comprehension of the
masses." Three in One primaries (and 3 mere aspects).
   On p. 289 of "Esoteric Writings" of Subba Row he demonstrates the
seven-fold correlation of three primaries and says: "Now, according to the
adepts of ancient aaryaavarta *seven principles* are evolved out of these
*three* primary entities.
   For the identity of the esoterism and the difference in name only of a
buddhistic and hinduistic nomenclature there are several well-known remarks
in the ML.
   Now far, far more important than any tabulations and diagrams you  will
have to watch the modus operandi of these chelas which is exactly the same
as fx. the analysis in the Bhagavad Gita 7.29-8.1 made by Arjuna.
   The difficulties arise from the interlinked correlation between the
various principles of man, solar system and universe.
   In short -

"to faciliate the comprehension of the masses" HPB used a system where
Subba Row used "the time-honoured" one. This has nothing to do with the
seven principles of manifestation - but the fact that Subba Row tried to
explain the system "in motion", the method of investigation where HPB set
out with a finite, semi-exoteric tabulation.

>Subba Row even referred to her (HPB) as "his opponent."

opponent in the discussion, a bit like us ,Jerry - something which may be
done in a very amiable fashion.

>it seems inconsistent to invoke Subba Row as an interpreter of HPB.

   May seem so, but they were chelas of the same master. The spirit guiding
their minds (in vital moments, during higher understanding, etc.), the
force directing their thought-forms would lead them in a similar direction,
not necessarily the initial ideas. Your idea of the life-long evolving
system of thought is correct, but this does not mean that the initial
system was very far from truth.

---------------
In friendship,

Kim