Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00442)

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.

Kim
>(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.

JHE
      I think this "rule" is universally applicable to any
discussion.  Call it a presupposition on my part if you wish, but
I believe that in order to understand what a person says, it is
best to start by asking what they mean.  Other people may have
opinions about what someone is saying, but I believe that the
person uttering the words is the best authority as to what was
meant by them.  Therefore, if HPB uses the term "manas" and
defines it as "a", while, say, Subba Row defines the same term as
"b", then I will come to the conclusion that by "manas", HPB
means "a" and Subba Row means "b".  If Subba Row then says that
HPB really meant "b" when she used the term "manas,"  I would
consider his point, but if HPB had clearly said "a" then I will
be inclined to side with her as the one who better knew what she
meant to say.
      One reason for my asking the terms you use for different
concepts was in order to help me to understand what you mean by
them further down the road.  From your earlier posts, I
anticipated that you will want to discuss the planes to some
extent.  Therefore, I wanted to start out by having you to tell
me the names you use when you talk about different classes of
planes.  The other reason for my asking for your terminology was
so that I might better understand your interpretation of the
chart in Vol. XII.  I apologize for the unintentional ambiguity
of my questions which left you to believe that I was asking you
to name the individual planes within each class of planes.
Though that was also interesting information, and I'm glad to
have it.  I trust you will answer my questions in a later post.

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
      Oh, I think her efforts were quite in earnest.  She wanted
the Theosophical Society to succeed, and in order to do that, she
had to minimize the public dissentions of Subba Row, Sinnett and
Olcott.  I already posted a part of an unpublished correspondence
between HPB and HSO, which I believe makes it very clear that HPB
did not regard Subba Row's "friendly discussions" (as you put it)
to be the least bit friendly.  If you want to go into this
tangent, it may be productive in the long run to do so.  But in
order to keep focused, I had suggested some available material
that you can go through on your own.

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
      No, I'm not "guessing his motives."  In his Autobiography,
Sinnett made his motives clear enough so that "guessing his
motives" isn't necessary.  He believed that HPB often lied and
gave false information because she was often taken over by "black
magicians."  Therefore, Sinnett believed that he gave a more
correct version of the Theosophical doctrines than HPB.  His
confirmation of the correctness of his doctrines came (he
believed) directly from the Masters through a medium he used for
the purpose of communicating with them.  I suggest that you read
Sinnett's Autobiography.
      In my opinion, the study of metaphysics and philosophy is
inseparable from the historical context in which it was
presented.  An example of the study of doctrine outside of
historical context can be found in the teachings of
fundamentalist Christianity.

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
      In the sense that she was trying to give to the public a
correct understanding of the Theosophical doctrines, she was
competing.  My bias is that HPB's exposition of the doctrines is
the most faithful to her teachers.  I'm not saying that she was
infallible, but I am strongly suggesting that I believe HPB to
have been the closest to her teachers.  I'm also making an
opinion based upon historical observation, that I believe HPB to
have been the most intellectually honest of the bunch.  Also, HPB
was supposed to have been especially trained to do the job she
did.  If we believe her special preparation for this job to be so
(we can't prove it one way of the other), then we have to accept
that HPB was the primary person chosen by the Masters for the
establishment of the modern Theosophical movement.  Obviously,
there were others who had contact with the Masters and played a
part.  But Sinnett was a "lay chela," and the Masters soon gave
up on him.   Subba Row's contact with Theosophy began in 1882.
Before that, he never showed any interest in metaphysics.  After
1885, he was hostile towards HPB.  On the other hand, HPB's
official contact with the Masters was supposed to have commenced
in 1851.  If you believe that Sinnett and Subba Row's training
and relationship to the Master's was on a equal par with HPB,
then perhaps we need to discuss this first.

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.

JHE
Then, at best, I might regard Subba Row's interpretation as his
opinion of what HPB wrote.  At worst, I might regard it as a
syncretisation of two systems into a third.  But we'll see what
happens.  Perhaps you will surprise me.

Kim
>No more talk of dying of boils from disagreeing in public - this
>is 1996 and we are doing exactly that! :-)

JHE
      An interesting reading of my question to Nicholas.  Though
you are having fun with this, Subba Row's comments and Olcott's
understanding of them raises some (I think) interesting
questions.  However, may the god of the pox be forever vanished
from this discussion :-)
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.

JHE
      My understanding was that Subba Row wanted nothing to do
with the SD mss because it made certain teachings public that he
believed should be kept secret.  The issue of the Masters being
made public was another issue of TSR that was not connected with
the SD.  It had to do with the Coulomb troubles.  HPB wanted
Subba Row and Olcott to stand united against the Coulomb
accusations.  Both refused to do so for different reasons.  Subba
Row's reason was that standing up to the Coulombs in a court of
law ran the risk of making the Masters an item of public
ridicule.  Olcott argued that the accusations would disappear on
their own if the issue was ignored.  Neither one stood up for HPB
in or outside of a court of law on this issue.  History shows
Olcott to have been clearly and tragically wrong in thinking that
the accusations would go away.  They re-appeared as evidence in
the SPR investigation.  Since HPB's lawsuit never went to court,
we will never know whether or not Subba Row was right about the
Masters becoming an object of public ridicule.  On the other
hand, HSO's and TSR's threats that finally tied HPB's hands into
inaction, clearly resulted in the follow up investigation of the
SPR and the eventual exposure of HPB, the TS and the Masters to
public ridicule anyway.

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.

JHE
      I don't question the possibility of an Adept influencing an
idea in the mind of another person.  I do however, question as to
when an idea is inspired by an Adept and when it is not.  I
believe that historical inquiry is often helpful is answering
this question.

Kim
>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).

JHE
      My experience with the SD is that her tracings are very
historical in nature.  Using history as a tool for the tracing of
ideas is perfectly consistent with HPB's methods in the SD in my
opinion.


Kim
>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
      As I stated above, my assumption is that HPB's exposition of
the doctrines are most faithful to her teachers.  That does not
make her infallible, but it does make her doctrines the primary
ones--next to the Mahatma Letters themselves.  I do not see
Theosophy as a variety of Hinduism, nor of Buddhism, nor of any
other religion.  HPB described Theosophy as a proto-religion--the
trunk from which all other religions came.  Therefore, if Subba
Row's ideas are closer to some extant Hindu work, that only
proves that his ideas are closer to some extant Hindu work.  From
my stand point, that does not prove Subba Row's ideas to be a
more correct exposition of Theosophical Doctrine, because
Theosophical doctrine does not depend upon any given extant
religious or philosophical system for its correctness.
      To express it in another way; if we were discussing
Platonism, would we not use Plato's writings as the primary
authority for what he wrote?  Why can't HPB be the primary
authority for what she wrote too?  Though Plato is supposed to
have been a re-expression of ancient vedic philosophy, that does
not mean that we have license to "correct" Plato's writings every
time it appears to contradict something in Vedic Philosophy.
Plato is Plato.  Blavatsky is Blavatsky.  Subba Row is Subba Row.
Vedic Philosophy is Vedic Philosophy.  If Kim Poulsen wants to
combine elements in Plato, Blavatsky, Subba Row, Vedic Philosophy
etc. into a new, more universal system, then I will call it the
Kim Poulsen system (for lack of a better name), and will also
defend the right for your system stand or fall upon its own
merits.
.................................

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).

JHE
      I have tried to be as forthright in the expression of my
assumptions as I can.  I'm sure that as we progress, more
assumptions on both our parts will surface and we will be able to
identify them as they appear.  So far, identifications of each
other's assumptions has been one of the main outcomes of our
discussion.  I think this kind of exploration is time well spent.


Best
Jerry

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