Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00579)

JHE:
>But Kim, you are forgetting that Sinnett's information about HPB
>did not come from the Mahatma Letters.  It came through a medium
>whom Sinnett believed was channeling the Mahatmas.  After the
>publication of Esoteric Buddhism, Sinnett's Theosophical
>teachings came from his medium, *not* from Mahatma letters.
>Also, Kim, Sinnett was warned in the Mahatma Letters that they
>would never communicate with him through a medium.

Kim
I would put a strong demarcation line between Sinnett, the recepient of the
Mahatma letters, the author of EB and the lay-chela of KH and between
Sinnett the believer in mediums in fx his London TS lodge days. I see his
attempt to restore his spiritual source as a desperate and mistaken but
understandable action. Certain things in EB, the major opus of Sinnett the
lay-chela I find of a very high quality.

JHE
>Yet APS found a medium and believe he was communicating with them >anyway.
 What does that suggest to you about Sinnett's "powers of >observation?"

Kim
In my opinion not much in this reasoning can be used for the time when he
wrote EB.
..............
JHE
>Who made these "exact same accusations"  against TSR?  I'm afraid
>I missed them.

Kim
Never mind. I have a strong dislike for this subject.

JHE
>Then you are suggesting that HPB was not trying to give to the
>public a correct understanding of the Theosophical Doctrines?

Kim
   Of course not. But when you mention several authors whose material
you perceive as differing systems and insert the word correct next to HPB,
then you not only are making a positive evaluation of HPB but giving the
readers of this an strong notion of your possible contrary opinion of the
others. These can only be "only partly correct - therefore partly
incorrect" or simply "incorrect".
   If my local library has 100 000 volumes and 10 are outstanding esoteric
works is it really necessary then to pick on 9 out of 10 and proclaim the
incorrect in order to make the 10th unique?

Kim
>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
>theosophists can be disregarded.

JHE
>Assuming that HPB's system is "very close" to TSR (which is a
>matter of interpretation), what "accusations" against TSR can in
>your view then be disregarded?

Kim
   Assuming nothing at all the accusations of left-hand influence,
misinformation, distortion and the like can be disregarded as foolish
slander and ill-informed ideas.
   As to the "matter of interpretion" we can get back to that later.

JHE
>.................... The term "selfish" is not mine.  I
>don't know who you are quoting.  Regarding p. 607, I find no
>mention of TSR in my copy.  But whatever comments you have in
>mind on p 607, they were all made with the intention that they
>eventually be published.

Kim
No reason to say more (and I did not quote you, Jerry). The remarks on
CW XII p. 607 are perfectly clear. No need for me to enter into any
speculations.

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
>Kim, you only quoted part of this letter to Olcott.  If you had
>quoted the whole thing, a very different light would have fallen
>on it.  To continue where you left off:
(snip)
"Does he mean to say that I should deny the Masters"

Kim
- The first possible interpretation given by HPB.
Not a very different light in my opinion. In her obviously excited state
she makes 3 suggestions as to the meaning of TSR. In another more
reflective mood she regretted ever mentioning masters. In her sentence
the word "deny" gives me associations to a proclamation of faith. She
possibly made a serious mistake and possibly TSR has been blamed
ever since for his attempt to avert it. This is a possible interpretation.

JHE
You might.also quote what he says of TSR in this same text:

Kim
Ah yes:
" He was against the disclosure of any higher teachings formerly esoteric"
What a strange judgement upon a man that gave out what he did. Another
thing is that he thought the englishmen in India of his day unsuitable for
esoteric teachings. So do I!

 JHE
>You might begin with the Introduction in the ~SD~, which is a
>chronological overview treating in depth the appearance and
>disappearance of the Ancient Wisdom through various
>civilizations.  However, she uses your etymological approach
>sometimes too.  Both are useful and both have their place.

Kim
Of course both have their place. But try give something like historical
context for indian philosophy using the commonly accepted chronology.

Kim
>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'm afraid that you rate both HPB and TSR far higher than I do.
>I would never rate either one of them with the Buddha.  As for
>HPB being of the same degree of initiation as TSR, I know of no
>evidence on way or the other,

Kim
I do not rate them with the Buddha. But I think perhaps 75 percent of
the meaning in translations of sanskrit and pali distorted. As to the
degree
of initiation we were talking about assumptions.

JHE:
>and his relatively short time of exposure to Theosophy raises questions
for >me.

Kim
Then you must have a whole heap of questions arising from the lives of
historical adepts. How about Shankara - suddenly a perfect adept at 17.

JHE
>We do know, however, that it was HPB's job to promulgate the teachings >to
the world.  What was TSR's "job?"  Did he have one?  Where is it
>described?

Kim
What was the Buddha?s job, what a strange line of reasoning. What is *our*
job? Are you a man with a mission Jerry? :-)

JHE
>If you need TSR to interpret HPB, then TSR become the authority
>for what HPB wrote.  TSR is then coloring HPB.  Instead, let HPB
>be her own authority.  Let Subba Row be his.

Kim
The concept "The esoteric meaning" is well-known in the SD as opposed to
"the opinion of X". This is the idea of a common truth which runs like a
red thread in the work.

JHE
>I never assume that any two people ever say quite the same thing.  I treat
>every writer as unique in outlook and expression.

Kim
So I have noticed. Permit me to believe in the concepts "esoteric meaning"
 and "common truth". And permit me to corroborate the use of prakriti for
the seventh universal with as many possible writers as possible.
Corroboration, "esoteric meaning", a common doctrine.

In friendship,

Kim