Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00483)

Tue, 7 May 1996 18:21:14 -0400	Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:

>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.

VB
Didn't this continue after HPB and TSR had died - this action to
thwart what HPB had revealed through her writings because they
revealed too many secrets that some people from India (and possibly
nearby regions) didn't want made public?  This issue may have been
discussed already - sorry to raise it if it has.  Call me paranoid
if you want, but I think there has been a steady stream of
purposeful misinformation and deliberate misdirection from a host
of "minor characters", who originated in India and adjoining
regions, targeted at people involved in theosophical works.

My position [VB] is that some of the more obvious results of this
counter movement to "keep the secrets secret" are the events and
works of people such as AB, CWL, and AAB.  What a better way to
bury what has been revealed than to lead the leaders into a
confusion and mish-mash of ideas.  And in the mean time what do we
know of the ancient Vedic philososphy that HPB kept toting to
everyone?  Almost nothing over more than a century later.  Where
are up to date and *extensive* translations into any english or any
other European language by anyone who has an inkling of occult
knowledge?  Where are these works so people in the "west" can judge
for themselves?  Any theosophists in India on this list care to
help me out here?


>JHE
>HPB wanted Subba Row and Olcott to stand united against the
>Coulomb accusations.  Both refused to do so for different reasons.
>.....Olcott argued that the accusations would disappear on their
>own if the issue was ignored....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....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...


VB
I disagree about H.S. Olcott.  The Coulomb accusations did
formulate publicly into the SPR report against HPB.  They didn't
go away in the lifetime of HPB or HSO but what has history proven
up to the present date?  What group (whether it be one or many
organizations) has flourished the more - theosophy or SPR?  Whose
version of the issues in the SPR report on HPB has been vindicated
by history?  What I can't understand is why HPB and HSO both put
any emphasis at all on the SPR at the time.  They had hundreds and
hundreds of different people and organizations tearing them apart
and trying to mutilate them during their days.  Why focus on the
SPR?  By paying so much attention to this report they gave it life.
HSO was on the right tract and history has proved him right in the
*long* run.  Only HPB and HSO had to die first before the SPR
report could die also.

I [VB] once again have my own theory as to the unreasonable power
of the Coulomb accusations.  In Volume 1 of HSO's diaries read the
nature of the relations HPB had with her female cooks and
housekeepers.  The way I see it, something had to balance out.


>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.
>[snip]
>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......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....


VB
Yes!  Agree wholeheartedly.

Historical inquiry, comparison of written (or recorded) works, and
straight intuition - what other way can I judge if Adept so and so
communicated with someone or not?  So far, I can't identify anyone
who wrote since 1870 who had as direct a connection as HPB did.

HPB's works are her works.  She openly said she drew from many
sources.  But her writings are her own and she presented them that
way from what I can tell.  Authors who mix their sources, call it
someone's else's and not their own ideas, and then don't tell where
they got their mixture from cause me more confusion than reading
them is worth.


Virginia Behrens TI, TSA