Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00601)

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
But Kim, they are the same person.  The attitudes that led to
Sinnett seeking out a medium are the same attitudes that led to
his break with the Mahatmas in the first place.  Sinnett was a
problematical person long before the break in correspondence.
This is plain even in the Mahatma letters.  As for EB having some
high quality material in it--yes I agree.  How could it not be,
considering from where APS copied the material.

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
APS was APS before and after the publication of EB.  The
attitudes that led to the break with the Masters were the same
that led to his break with HPB.  Those same attitudes were there
in 1880, 1883, 1885 and 1888.

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
Interesting.  Why?

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".

JHE
I already stated out front that my bias is that HPB's expositions
of the doctrines are the most faithful to her teacher's.
Remember, it was HPB's mission to disseminate the teachings.  Do
you recall that letter you partially quoted me?  When I finished
the quote, we found that HPB affirmed her position with her
teachers and her mission.

Kim
>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?

JHE
I tried to make plain earlier that I would "proclaim" all 100,000
volumes "unique."  Remember: "Plato is Plato, HPB is HPB, TSR is
TSR, APS is APS " etc.

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 interpretation" we can get back to that
>later.

JHE
Your answer doesn't appear to be responsive to my original
question.  You originally wrote:

"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 her 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."

Now, granting for the sake of argument that the systems are
close, I'm asking how does that fact lead you to conclude that "a
whole range of accusations against TSR by devout theosophists can
be disregarded."?  Which accusations are these?  Who made the
accusations?  How are these accusations connected to p. 607?
Are you suggesting by your phrase "accusations of left hand
influence" that someone stated that TSR was under the influence
of "black magicians?"   Who made this statement? Where? I missed
it.

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
I'm looking at the letter as a whole.  Yes, she is suggesting
ways to interpret TSR's condition, but she also makes a decisive
request to Olcott to deliver a message to Adyar:

"(1) It is I, who brought in, the first, the existence of the
Masters to the world and the TS.  I did it because They sent me
to do the work and make a fresh experiment in this XIX century
and I have done it, that best I knew how.  It may not dovetail
with S.R.'s ideas, it answers truth and fact.....And one of the
two--I either know them personally as I have ever maintained; or-
-I have invented then and Their doctrines..."

So here, she is giving an answer that is equally valid for any or
all of the possible interpretations of TSR's statement:  that it
was HPB who was sent to do the work--not TSR.  Whether or not TSR
agrees with HPB's methods, it was still her job and her
responsibility to do it.  Why would TSR think he had the right to
interfere with someone else's job?  Seems to me that how HPB
carried out her mission is an issue between her and her boss--not
her and TSR.

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
See Dan Caldwell's post concerning HPB's statement to her ES
members.

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.

JHE
I wouldn't attempt it.  Fortunately Indian Philosophy is outside
the context of the discussion, so there will be no need to do so
either.

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
Sure--assumption.  You are welcome to it.  Considering the
documents, It is just much too big of an assumption for me to
make.  But, I understand your assumption is based upon a
comparison of the writings.  If I could ignore the historical
documents, I might be able to make a similar assumption too.

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
Nope.  Different cases.  To begin with, I see TSR as a chela, not
an adept.

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
The Buddha's job was to be the Buddha at the midpoint of our
cycle.  Our job is, among other things, to conduct this dialogue
with due care.  My "mission" at the moment is to get through
school.

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 lost you here.  Or you lost me.  I said nothing about
"opinion."  I'm talking about the appropriation of a text.

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.

JHE
I gladly "permit" you to believe in the concept of "esoteric
meaning" and "common truth."  I also share these beliefs.  But
for me, corroboration does not necessarily affirm or deny them.

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