Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00327)

Kim
>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
I think the occasional use of selected outside material may be
helpful in some cases for the purpose of clarification, but
should not be the evidence.  For instance a specific comment from
Jinarajadasa explaining what CWL meant when he said such and such
can be very helpful to get a perspective of what someone else
understood CWL to mean.  But CWL must remain the authority for
CWL, not Jinarajadasa.  Therefore, citing Purucker's system of
twelve globes to prove that HPB really meant to write about
twelve globes even though she only wrote about seven is, I think
pushing matters too far, and implies a trust in Purucker's system
that is outside of the parameters of the discussion.  Similarly,
using Alice Bailey's system  to interpret HPB's would also, in my
opinion, be going the parameters.  We need to understand HPB by
reading HPB and understand CWL by reading CWL.

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"

Kim
>I have earlier explained on Theos-l (ABC+D thread, january) what
>the differences arose from.
[snip]

JHE
Kim, I think you have completely missed my point here.  I'm well
aware of HPB's efforts to compare and justify the two systems.
She attempted to do the same thing with Sinnett who also tried to
create an opposing Theosophical system.  In both cases HPB tried
to deal with the opposing ideas in such a way as not to bruise
those male egos and to keep from the public eye that Subba Row,
and Sinnett were really at odds with HPB and competing with her.
This aspect of the story clearly comes out in their private
letters, not in a comparison of their public writings.  For me to
extensively go into this issue will take us way off track.  But
you can research it for yourself in the Blavatsky/Sinnett letters
and by going through the early ~Theosophist~ and putting Subba
Row's writings and HPB's responses in their correct chronological
order.  I think that you will find that a completely different
picture emerges than the one that comes through in Olcott's
edited version of Subba Row's ~Esoteric Writings.~  You will also
find relevant material there that was not included in the
     Let us just suffice to say that writers have to stand or
fall on their own merits.  Using Subba Rows system or anyone
else's to further explain HPB's runs the risk of syncretism.

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

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

JHE
I disagree with this interpretation, and I think HPB makes it
clear that she did not see it this way either.  Though HPB
constantly worked to smooth over Subba Row's, Olcott's and
Sinnett's ruffled ego's, or when necessary, to confront them, she
also publicly gave them the benefit of a doubt.  But she wasn't
fooled about what they were up to.  She had to both deal with
their hostility and show a united front to the public.  From this
perspective, HPB's public statement in the ~Theosophist~ may take
on a different light:

"Before I say anything further upon the main subject, however, I
must express my surprise at finding the learned author referring
to me continually as his "critic."  I have never criticized him,
nor his teachings, whether orally, or in print.  I had simply
expressed regret at finding in the ~Theosophist words calculated,
as I then thought, to create false impressions.  The position
assumed by the lecturer on the Gita [Subba Row] was as unexpected
as it was new to me, and my remarks were meant to be as friendly
as I could make them." (~Theosophist~, August 1887, 651;

In contrast, below is what HPB privately wrote to Olcott in June
of the same year:

"Who is it then, who is forcing him [Subba Row] to feel so
inimical toward me?  This is not natural and it lasts ever since
I left Adyar.  Since then I wrote to him five or six most
friendly letters--*he has never answered me one line.*  No one
could be more contemptuous with me than he, whom I have honored
always *above myself.*"  (June 3, 1887. unpublished).

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

Kim
>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.

JHE
This view is undemonstrable and is as unanswerable as Ireneaus'
proclamation concerning the reason why there are only four
genuine Gospels. I don't think we will get very far by pinning
our interpretations on this kind of thinking.

Kim
>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.

JHE
I didn't suggest that it wasn't.  Rather, I think HPB began with
basic concepts and built upon them.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Part 2:

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"?

Kim:
>Extent? Who knows? Did you read my recent post on extension as a
>property of space, an answer to Liesel? Do you want support for
>this idea of universal planes, I consider it well-known?

JHE
No, I don't need support for the ideal of universal planesnor do
I question the philosophical propositions concerning extension.
As I explained earlier, I'm just trying to get a feel for how you
understand the terms you use.  But for clarity, I will rephrase
my question:  If the "universal planes" are "states external to
our solar system", then what are they internal to?  e.g.: Our
galaxy?;  Our family of galaxies?; the entire universe?

JHE
>>Do you have a term for planes "external" to the "universal
>>planes"?

Kim
>I have never seen anywhere material on anything *external* to
>these. Any decent philosopher treats only of the 6th and 7th of
>these planes - they are the white circle plane in the black
>field. The 6th is completely unknown. The vedantins place their
>Parabrahm on the first plane, the seventh being prakritic, the
>5th universal mind.

JHE
Which chart are you using here?
JHE
> What do you call the planes of the solar system?

Kim
>I do not call them anything. I like to use the terminology of
>the author. I use numbers. In CW XII p. 658 the 3 lower (Figure
>B) are called Jivic ("egoic" also mental), Astral and Objective
>(physical)  If I may choose, I choose the terminology of AAB
>which remains the same from her first volume to her 24th and
>last.

JHE
Sorry. My question was unintentionally ambiguous.  I was really
asking for an overall term for the planes--like "solar planes."
I didn't mean to ask you to enumerate them.  But I'm glad for
this answer too.

JHE
>>What do you call the planes for the earth's system of globes?

Kim
>4 lower planes of the solar system also called planes of the 4
>ethers (AAB). see again CW XII p. 658 for grossest globe (ours)
>on 7th or objective plane.

JHE
Again thanks for this answer.  But again I was looking for an
overall term.

JHE
>>What do you call the planes for the sun's system of globes?

Kim
>Our planetary chain ARE one of our sun's systems of globes (at
>least affiliated with this solar system)?  Or do you mean the
>sacred planets?


JHE
No, I don't mean the sacred planets. I was asking for the overall
term for the planes of the sun's system of globes, ie the sun's
globes A - E.

JHE
>>What do you call the planes where are to be found the human
>>principles?

Kim
>On all planes of the solar system and hence the planes of the
>planetary chain except the highest. The important principles are
>the relation between monad and ego - ending with the mental
>plane, the 5th. These constitute the buddhist skandhas and the
>correlations of atma, so to speak, in hinduism.  They are
>correlation of force or spirit rather than correlation of
>elements, elementals. The knowledge of these principles
>constitute a whole science for itself.

JHE
Then you are saying that the human "astral body" is on the solar
"astral plane" and the "mental body" is on the solar mental
plane?

JHE
Please enumerate for me the terms you use for the seven
principles of man.

--------------------------------------------------------

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
>No. But if you read p. 289 of Esoteric Writings you will find
>each of the differentiated universals on its own plane. 1, 3 and
>and 7 are the primary. It would be possible to name the planes
>after these principles. If you wish to use principles as
>designating only 7 differentiated states of an entity or certain
>types of manifestation it will be Ok.

JHE
Since we are not comparing Subba Row to HPB, I don't find your
illustration very helpful.  Can you find something in HPB or CWL
to illustrate your point?

Kim
>   There is much subtlety in the fact that you want to want to
>agree on a fixed terminology. This was in my opinion the real
>cause behind the change you call neo-theosophy. It remains for
>us to form an opinion whether an adept impressed this on the
>minds of various theosophical writers or someone dreamed it up.

JHE
I'm afraid I don't follow what you are saying here.
............................

JHE:
>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.

Kim
>Well, I will wait for your photocopies to arrive to elaborate on
>CWL (and thank you), but since you have raised a great amount of
>vital questions, I will be rather busy.
>   Buy the way I certainly do not feel a need to be consistent
>with CWL - I would like to show the overall system of the
>approximately similar philosophies of AB, CWL, and AAB to be
>consistent with HPB. If it is not prooved here I would still
>advocate students to take this position.

JHE
I think your desire "to show the overall system of the
approximately similar philosophies of AB, CWL and AAB to be
consistent with HPB"  would just defocus the discussion at this
point.  It is evident that you begin with the assumption that
AAB's expression of this system of doctrines is the genuine one.
I respect your assumption, but do not share it.  But more
importantly, I think that what your wish to advocate this overall
system goes far beyond the scope of our discussion--viz the
compatibility of HPB and CWL.  I suggest that we begin by
exploring the compatibility between HPB and CWL.  Once we finish
this, we could go to HPB and Subba Row; then HPB and Besant; then
CWL and Besant; then CWL and AAB etc.  Eventually we will get to
where you want to go, but we will have taken every rung of the
latter to get there.

JHE
>>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.

Kim
>How can somebody like us be neutral on the question of esoteric
philosophy?

JHE
We are not. Which is my point.

Kim
>It is not like researching subjects where one can hold back an
>opinion until all facts are evaluated. In esoteric philosophy
>it is necessary to accept the preliminary propositions for the
>time being. If this is not done no progress will be done in this
>direction whatsoever. I have carried definite ideas in my mind
>for over a decade on these subjects and would rather undergo
>surgery than extract these forms from my thoughts.
>   Neither of us are really neutral, but CWL is sort of neutral
>ground :-)

JHE
HPB only asks for three preliminary propositions.  For me, no
others are necessary.  As for CWL, I have opinions based upon a
lot of historical research.  So in this sense, he is not neutral
ground for me either.

JHE
>>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.

Kim
>I have spend tens of thousands of working hours on the works of
>HPB and especially the Secret Doctrine, nothing new is likely to
>turn up to surprise either of us. We can agree or disagree on
>our interpretation of the documentation and then drop it to
>avoid a useless yes-no argument.
>  The object - my object is to convince the readers here and
>plant the germ of reasonable doubt in your own mind.

JHE
Trust me, the germ or reasonable doubt is forever in my mind.  On
the Briggs Myers scale (i've taken this test on several
occasions, and the results are quite consistent) I rated very
strongly in the "perception" category, as opposed to the
"judgmental" category.  That is supposed to mean that I operate
on a very tentative level.  So there is no reason for you to take
out your rake, hoe and shovel.   As for "the readers," I doubt if
more than three or four others are interested enough in the
subject to follow this.  Of them, I submit that they are probably
more or less familiar with the principles and already have their
own opinions concerning them.

JHE
>>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.

Kim
>Very well put. The exact reason why I rarely attack a viewpoint.
>That "reason that go beyond the evidence or any intellectual
>considerations" is the very force that make me trust or reject
>material on spiritual matters - but it is impossible to use such
>reasoning both in scholarly circles and here. And feel free to
>interfere with my beliefs, I am enjoying myself thoroughly.
JHE
I think there is room for "reason that goes beyond the evidence
of any intellectual considerations"  in scholarly circles.  But
it has to be come after all of the evidence is examined and
evaluated from several viewpoints.  Even then, the more
transcendental conclusions still have to be consistent with the
evidence.

-------------------------------------------------

Nicholas Weeks writes:

>Quoting K in ML #85:
>
>"*Upasika* (Madame B.) and Subba Row, though pupils of the same
>Master, have not followed the same Philosophy -- the one is
>Buddhist and the other an Adwaitee."
>
>My reading of Subba Row's attitude during his debates with HPB
>was that this was not (to him) an intellectual exercise of two
>brother chelas. He was genuinely convinced that HPB had done
>something terrible (re the 7 principles and revealing too much
>in general). HPB had the larger heart & mind and could see the
>"spirit guiding their minds" -- Subba Row could not. Thus his
>fierce attempt to destroy Theosophy as put forth by HPB.

JHE
Nicholas, thanks for the quote and your input.  I've always
wondered about Subba Row dying so young and so terribly by being
mysteriously disfigured by boils.  He told Olcott that it was his
karma for something.  But for what?  I wonder if it was connected
with his occultism or his animosity towards HPB?  Any thoughts?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Dan Caldwell writes:

>In summary, it is my opinion that if the discussion is not
>limited, if terms are not carefully defined, and if relevant
>quotes from the original writers are not given, your joint
>efforts will be mostly wasted.  Plus interested readers will
>find themselves in a confusing fog due to the vague,
>generalizing nature of the discussion.


JHE
Yes Dan, I agree with you here.  We need to define terms and
focus the discussion to the subject at hand i.e. HPB and CWL.  I
feel (at least hope) that we are making some progress toward
this.  But it appears that Kim wishes to operate from the a
priori assumption that HPB and CWL, as well as AB, AAB, TSR etc.
are all compatible under a more inclusive set of occult
doctrines.  Until Kim agrees to put this assumption aside (he
doesn't have to reject it), any exploration of the comparison
between HPB and CWL will be just an exercise of circular
reasoning within Kim's third system.  Therefore, it seems that
our preliminary discussion is necessary in order to put aside
this third system before a discussion of the other two is
possible.  However, I don't think the time is wasted.  Even if we
never get to the proposed topic, we will at least have explored
the more general subject of how circular reasoning blocks any
real exploration of a topic.
     Now that I think about it, perhaps the main block in
communication between Jerry S and myself also concerned his a
priori assumption of a third system.  In this case, it was
Jerry's "Gupta vidya" magical system.  If you recall, he always
returned to it for his explanations.
     By the way, did you receive my package?


------------------------------------------------------

JHE
>>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.


Rich Taylor writes:

>You are right that only you and Dan defend this position, but I
>for one wholeheartedly support it.  I simply don't have the MSS
>resources or the incredible background you and Dan Caldwell have
>to make most of my cases this way.  I think the questions you
>are asking and the procedure you are following is the only way
>to explain how original Theosophy differs from neo-Theosophy,
>and goes a long way toward explaining WHY they differ.
>
>Though often silent on this point, I am behind you 110% in
>spirit.


JHE
     Yes, it is true that Dan and I have a tremendous advantage
by having access to material that most students of Theosophy are
not even aware of.  But as I have announced many times before,
Alexandria West is an open resource.  It is available to anyone
wishing to use it, regardless of their beliefs or politics.  But
you don't need an "Alexandria" in your neighborhood to find
valuable information.  Local Lodge libraries are also good
resources, as well as the larger libraries at Wheaton (Adyar TS),
Los Angeles (ULT) and Pasadena (TSP).  These are also available
for public use.
     Rich, you are already trained in research methodology and
know how to get and process information.  Many of your
contributions on theos-l are the fruits of this discipline.
However, there are others on theos-l who base their opinions and
beliefs on third hand information and blind loyalties to other
people's opinions and beliefs.  When they come on line
disparaging historical research or any other approach that brings
forth information that threatens their beliefs, I'm reminded that
the TS is still in many ways a queer little cult based upon
revelation, and has receded very far from the progressive
philosophical movement it started out to be.
     Thanks for giving me an opening to announce Alexandria West
again, and to blow off a little steam  :-)

JHE

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