Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00528)

JHE (on Sinnett)
>      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.

Kim:
  He had in his possession the mahatma letters - the material you
put higher than HPB herself as an authority . His trust in these, the
observations of and comments on HPB within this material and his
reliance upon his own powers of observation can explain much in this
standpoint. The exact same accusations has been forwarded against
TSR in the last couple of days on Theos-l. All is in the eye of the
beholder.

JHE
>      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.

    I have not yet found the time for answering your pleas for a
scholarly approach, your ideas of methodology etc. Obviously
historical context means a lot to you and it is certainly a possible
approach with modern writers. As soon as we move before 1450 it
is far more questionable if this approach can be of any help. The
difference
between certain datings in theosophical writings and commonly accepted
chronology (the basis of course of any historical context) will be well
known.
   Personally I do not have very high regards for the science of chronology
with regard to written sources and hence the scholarly standards in this
direction.
   A short example (unrelated to theosophy but still relevant): Many years
ago I researched the political history of Denmark in the 11th-12th c. and
spend 2-3 years on the project. As a beginning I read every single primary
source on the subject. Now while the 12th c. is well-documented the 11th is
not so: the whole material is made up of a few letters, a few short notes
in foreign chronichles and a not very large collection of stories in verse
(danish and icelandic sagas) written down in the 13th c. Most of the
century is a near blank, an unknown period. Yet with great surprise I
followed -  while reading the works of modern scholars - 4 generations of
modern, supposedly critical historians creating, each period of scholars
building upon the previous, a complete history for the period. Complete
with year-by-year events (basically the sagas strung on a conjectural time
frame). All sorts of loose ideas, hobby-horses and assumptions would also
find its way into this near-phantasy (especially in the case where a number
of historians built upon their common teacher or respected "leading
authority on the subject"). Yet never, ever did one of these historians
state in writing that their ideas was mostly guesswork. To analyse the
arising of this history a mere reading of all sources would not be
sufficient - an analysis of the habitual thinking of each historian (and
historians in general) would also be needed.
   This (much too long) example is far from an exception. Especially in the
case of little known periods (like most of the history of India) I have a
distinct feeling that almost anything goes: the volumes of history must be
written!
   Back to our subject

JHE (on HPB)
>      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.

   Yes the first sentence here is certainly biased. It is very clear
from p. 607 of CW that her real system "on strict esoteric lines"
is very close to TSR (except in the terminology in a few of the
principles), that previous writings of hers also is labeled semi-exoteric
by herself and as a result that a whole range of accusations against
TSR by devout thesophists can be disregarded.
   The neutral analyzer (with your high scholarly standards) would have
to ask: Did TSR in reality see the explanations as semi-exoteric rather
than "selfishly not wanting to see HPB divulge esoteric truths" (a common
opinion among theosophists)? Why would HPB to her own private students
make the comments on p.607? Certainly not for reasons regarding the
public, the future of theosophy, etc.
   If we really want go into ascribing various motives (other than
benevolence) to people for writing on spiritual subjects. Or rather that
such
a motive would influence the writing: I had a motive for entering this
discussion, did this have any effect on my determination to write what I
see
as the truth? Certainly not!
   Why did Shankara incarnate and reversed the effect of buddhism, why did
he choose the vedantic form and destroyed buddhism in India. I almost hear
the devout, historical complaint: "influenced by left-hand sorcerors,
jealous, impure motives, died young from certain karmic reasons." Has this
any relevance to TSR? Mainly one: is all this really necessary? My bias is
that a great number of people do have pure motives, especially spiritually
oriented people.

JHE
>I'm also making an opinion based upon historical observation, that I
>believe HPB to have been the most intellectually honest of the bunch.

Kim
Well I like to think that "intellectual honesty" is a common trait among
chelas and lay-chelas (only to their day of failure of course) - based on
history *and* observation.

JHE
> 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.

Kim
> see below

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.

Kim:
Letter of Feb 24, 1888 (quoted in Zirkoff ed. of SD p [47]):

"Now Tookaram writes me a letter. In it he says that S. R. told him
that he was ready to help me and correct my S.D *provided* I took
out from it every reference to the Masters!"

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:
   Yes but "using history as a tool for the tracing of ideas" is what I see
myself as doing. If I wants investigate the meaning of a term like
"paramartha" used in the SD, I consult the works of Shankara, Asanga and
Nagarjuna in that order since they are all regarded as master & initiates
and all treats of the subject in detail. Rather than bothering with any
contemporary writers - unless the subject arises in a direct dialogue.
  Of course in certain areas like the chronologizing of letters your
historical approach comes in as highly useful. I cannot see the SD as
similar in approach. Not a single historical context is provided in depth,
ideas are simple picked out of their context and presented on their own
face value - regardless of the author.

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.

Kim
My assumption is that these teachers used HPB to write teachings to which I
ascribe high authority. My second assumption is  that at least part of the
Mahatma Letters were written by the same teachers. My third assumption is
that HPB on her own, so to speak, was a chela of the same degree of
initiation as TSR and that their writings belong to the same degree of
"authority". To roughly the same level I would assign - because of
translation problems - the Buddha, Shankara and then a line of teachers
Tsong-ka-pa, Patanjali, Krishna, Asanga and others. With my level of trust
mostly depending on my mastery of the language in which their works was
written.

JHE:
 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.

Kim:
  I see the Ancient Wisdom-Religion proposition as the source of all
religions and philosophical systems and theosophy as the synthesis -
because it is a synthesizing mode of thinking. And where the disregard of
the components of this synthesis would be a disaster. I see esoteric
buddhism, vedanta and theosophy as a common, true system - and exoteric
buddhism, vedanta and theosophy as a differing, untrue form.
   We do not need to exchange quotes on this.

JHE
>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

Kim
  Are you really refering to the upanishads as some "some hindu work".
I prefer "priceless esoteric treatises". "That his ideas are closer to some
priceless esoteric treatises".

JHE
> 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?

Kim
  I would certainly bring up Pythagoras, the neo-platonists and probably
some eastern works as well - in an attempt to understand his way of
thinking rather than getting involved in an broadside-exchange of
quotes of lesser and higher authority.

JHE:
> Why can't HPB be the primary authority for what she wrote too?

Who says she cannot? Do I read you right as saying:
A) Theosophy is the true (and only true) expression of the ancient
Wisdom-Religion, which is the esoteric "truth"
B) HPB is the most "intellectually honest" expounder and highest authority
on this.
C) From this follows (my assumption) that HPB is the highest authority on
esoteric subjects.

   If there is some measure of truth in presenting this as your view it
seems like a very rigid system devoid of much attempt of synthesis of
religion. philosophy and science. I believe in the latter as a method of
investigatiom rather than the sub-title of a Bible-like work.

JHE:
>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),

Kim
Somehow I would like "old, more universal system" and "commentary on
theosophical thought and esoteric philosophy" better. Maybe I lack
ambition!

JHE:
>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.

 I hope so, since they are certainly time-consuming and Alan hates long
posts!  :-)

In friendship,

Kim