Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00429)

JHE
>..................  Similarly,
>using Alice Bailey's system  to interpret HPB's would also, in my
>opinion, be going (outside?) the parameters.  We need to understand HPB by
>reading HPB and understand CWL by reading CWL.

  (a rule most relevant for your case as you are postulating a fatal
difference
in the planes and principles) - anyway I will await the material you send
for CWL. Since we in our last post discussed *my* understanding you surely
would want to use the first 2 to be able to get references to terms.
   I generally use numbers alongside the names which should be a help.

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.

Kim
:-) Her statements and the many statements in the ML that the systems
were differing in terminology and a few trifling details only. "Effort"
makes it sound like you believe her to be not quite in earnest.

JHE
>She attempted to do the same thing with Sinnett who also tried to
>create an opposing Theosophical system.

Kim
You are guessing his motives - but this is way outside our parameters. If
you propose I trust your great amount of research in theosophical history
and painstaking investigation of source material, I would expect nothing
less in the realm of metaphysics and philosophy.

JHE
> 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.

Kim
   And she was not competing? Maybe your perspective is a little
black&white here?. This direction seems to take us away from the subject.

JHE
>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.

Kim:
Yes !!!

JHE:
>   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.

Kim:
   When relevant I will take it. I share completely the view of p. 607 of
CW XII.The diagram makes everything very clear. These words are some of her
last on the subject and they are clear and explicit.
   No more talk of dying of boils from disagreeing in public - this is 1996
and we are doing exactly that! :-)

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.

Kim
   Again something with the perspective. In fact a major controversy or
complaint by HPB was that Subba Row advised her to take the mentioning of
masters out of the SD. Clearly he saw this as the proof-reading he was
asked to do (even if he forwarded the opinion before seeing the full
manuscript) - and what a brilliant advice in the light of later
theosophical history. The complaint has become famous and I have never seen
a theosophist in writing trying to see the issue  from both sides - again I
think we are wandering far away from our subject.

........
Kim
>>.......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

   Jerry, our reasoning are very different in these matters. I am
investigating ideas without much interest in personality history. If it is
possible for an adept to influence an idea (or even give birth to it) in
the mind of another person then, in such a case, little further information
can be conveyed by studying all sorts of events and previous and later
writings of this person. The IDEA must speak for itself. If the Secret
Doctrine can be used as a guideline how to conduct research then this
tracing of ideas is the way to do it. That is, naturally, when we are
discussing philosopy, metaphysics, etc - not theosophical history (an area
where I bow to your expertise).
   Also the issue is related more to fx. Eldon?s concept of *bona fide*
writings than gospels. You make the assumption that HPB is naturally right
when she differs from Sinnett or Subba Row. Without going into the
reasonable in this assumption, it must be stated that there no proof of
such an idea at present. In fact Subba Row?s ideas would be far easier to
corroborate since they are based on extant works and closely related to
other systems of thought. If we choose to trust HPB our reasons at present
are - intuitions. As for pinning our interpretations on it - what else?

JHE
 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.

Kim
   Excellent put and not untrue. But remember we are as yet talking about 2
or 3 ideas of CWL - a few references to planes and principles. I will for
the exercise put the "3rd system"  aside when your material arrives. What I
add from my more "inclusive set of occult doctrines" you may see as
footnotes. Of course we would have to discuss your own basic assumptions
and unprooven interpretations as well unless you find it permissible to add
them, as well as mine, as comments
(or the whole exercise would have little point).

In friendship,

Kim