Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00645)

JHE (on Sinnett)
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.

Kim
I do not share your evaluation. Of course they are the same person (not
necessarily with the same intensity in their personality traits). The
psychological transformations of Hume is worth a study - especially in view
of the law mentioned at the beginning of ES instruction I. A transformation
from a man with high moral aspirations - to a highly suspicious, spiteful
OGRE during his days of occult training - and eventually back to a
relatively unselfish state. All these students, chelas and lay-chelas, can
be excused in my view - HPB, TSR, Sinnett, Hume, many of the latter-day
theosophists as well.  In my book only one thing remains - what did they
achieve in their lives to help others? This part - the best of them - is
the part I care about. Nothing else.
-------------------
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
   Yes, and you clearly saw her own statement (a few words of complaint
written in a letter and a very emotional statement regarding her
importance!) as some sort of evidence to bring up in all disputes among HPB
and others. I find as many emotional reactions in the letters of HPB as in
any others. Even when HPB admits an "error", even when the evidence is very
clear on a specific philosophical subject you apparently see it fit to
bring in argumentation like this.
   Jerry, I have a strong feeling of dejavu when this type of argumentation
arises. The East is full of tulkus, avatars and gurus and reason avails
nothing with their supporters: "X was a tulku, who are you to object
against his views?".. I may be a little over-sensitive to this line of
reasoning perhaps.
---------------------------
JHE:
Remember: "Plato is Plato, HPB is HPB, TSR is
TSR, APS is APS " etc.

Kim
Not in the opinion of HPB (and myself). Both of us works from
the assumption of a esoteric inner meaning which is common, and
can be understood and divulged. Again and again she makes comments
that Plato and TSR (and other initiates) is meaning this and that from
the basis of such a system and their understanding of it. If you
wish as an excercise of thought and from some ideal of scholarship to
view such system as differing in essence you can naturally do so. No method
can be imposed on me, I am satisfied with my own and have seldom formed my
opinion on anything but primary evidence.

---------------------------------
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?

Kim
Reasons will be apparent from this letter (see below). I am very sad that I
had to write it. I have a tremendeous longing to get back to the cool
tenets of philosophy.
-----------------------------------------

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 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."
(inserted argument) HPB herself works from the assumption that
their respective teachings were treating of the same subject, that they
were discussing the same subject.

JHE:
>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.

Kim
Let us just say that the first thing that happened when a difference (what
appeared to be a difference) was mentioned between HPB and TSR (in this
case the issue of 7 principles versus 4+3) I noticed 3 reactions:
a) List-contributor A makes the deduction that TSR was under the influence
of left-hand adepts since he appeared to contradict his heroine.
b) List-contributor B in the same context makes the deduction that TSR was
against the divulging esoteric truths, that his ideas consequently probably
was the first in a long line of misinformation and distortions of truth.
c)You eventually ended up with arguments like "It was her (HPB?s) mission",
etc - and this in the face of strong evidence (her own admission).
You used your faith in HPB in an argument where she clearly admitted
that it was her first explanation that was semi-exoteric (and that TSR was
closer to the truth( as an argument in the discussion!
d) During the discussion you also brought up a similar statement by Zirkoff
which was made in another context but which fits in this group of
argumentation of a traditional religious nature and not belonging in a
philosophical discussion. Material out of context, biases and proclamations
of faith are used where I would have liked to see philosophical
argumentation. PLEASE let us get down to business.

JHE
> 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
- and again, and again. You overrules a piece of evidence on a subject
given to personal students during class by a complaint written in a hasty
letter (on what would could have been a lousy morning) on another subject.
Analyzing the nature of the material is vital.

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

Kim
Exactly. It forms part of the clear-cut evidence in the case of the "seven
principles controversy" . Thank you Daniel!

------------------------------
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.

Kim
a) You question a source because of the short time of exposure to theosophy
(??!!??).b)  I give you another example of instant access to esoteric
information. c) you end up making cloudy graduations where you aught to
have "OK. Such a thing is possible. Let us drop this line of inquiry.
d) I say "let us drop this line of inquiry".

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
I honestly do not think such arguments can be used in a discussion
of philosophy. If we want to analyse the role of TSR we can do it at a
later time.

-------------------------------------
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.

Kim
But they certainly strongly supports the very concept of them. HPB
works with such assumptions all the time. HPB works from the
assumption that behind the words of HPB and TSR there is a esoteric
meaning and that any difference need to be explained. The world of
scholarly research would generally in the case of SIMILARITY make
the guess that one copied the other. The two approaches to study are
completely antagonistic.

I hope you take no offense, these represent my views. Where I have
misunderstood motives I apologize.  ;-)

In friendship,

Kim