Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00733)

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
Let us hope that we are all remembered for our positive
contributions and not for our failures.  However, for me to
better appreciate the successes, I also need to know the
failures.  I have to care about both.  One helps in the
understanding of the other.  For me, understanding someone
requires that I find out as much as possible about them--not just
to select the positive aspects.  I believe that the greatness in
people come from their efforts to overcome what is not great.
For me, to understand one is to understand the other.

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.

JHE
It appears to me that you are discounting HPB's statement because
it seems to be emotional.  Am I reading you correctly?   My own
view is that her statements in this letter are true whether or
not she was emotional at the time she made them.  If you are
suggesting that she may not have made that statement if she was
in a different mood--well, that could be true--but it is not very
relevant to me.  The veracity of the statement is what is
important to me here.

Regarding the idea of discounting one's message because of the
feelings behind it seems to be a very common human trait.
Prosecution lawyers in this country love to use this.  They know
that if a person protests his innocence too loudly, the jury will
be inclined to assume his guilt, whether he is or not ("Me thinks
thou protests too much").  Therefore lawyers usually prefer to
keep their clients off the witness stand whether they are guilty
or not.  In reality, innocent people are as inclined to protest
their innocence as much as a guilty person.  Obviously HPB was
protesting rather loudly here, but I believe it to be an error of
prejudice to discount her message.

Kim
>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
Kim, I believe that you are gravely mis-judging me here.  But you
are not the first to suggest that I blindly worship HPB when I
offer evidence in her defense.  I have also been accused of the
same thing about Judge.  On several occasions I made postings
here on theos-l where I made critical statements concerning HPB
and Judge--but they were done in the context of conversations
that concerned their falliblities.  No one has ever protested my
making those remarks.  Yet, when I offer information in her
defense I get this accusation that I worship her, or consider her
infallible.  To dispel this accusation, I have on two occasions
itemizing statements in HPB's writings that I consider to
be factually wrong, and pose opinions concerning the weaknesses
in her character.  More recently, I did the same for Judge.  I
tried to get this across to you in earlier posts, when I said
straight out that I did not believe HPB to be infallible.
Perhaps I need to retrieve those posts where I enumerate HPB's
errors and re-post them every thirty days just to remind people
that I don't believe her to be perfect.

Now I hope that we can disregard the incorrect inference that I
can see no wrong in HPB or Judge.  I suggest that this accusation
is too often used as defense mechanism in order for one to avoid
making a serious examination of the evidence raised in the
discussion.  I'm sure that this is not your intention, but I have
many times seen this used as a smoke screen.   In another
discussion, someone recently, someone tried to "score a point" by
informing me that they "know" that I don't like Purucker, and
suggested that if I wasn't so ignorant of Purucker's teachings, I
would better understand HPB if I had read him.  The accusations
as well as the logic was in my opinion ridiculous in light of the
fact that I studied for almost twenty years in close contact with
three of Purucker's personal students.  My study with them
terminated not because I left that circle, but because these
students finally died--leaving me, the youngest among them to
fend for myself.  After twenty years of exposure to Purucker
students who were in turn my teachers, I think it A bit hard to
understand how one would assume me to be ignorant of Purucker.
The other part of the argument that I found to be unexceptable is
that one has to read Purucker to understand HPB.  My approach is
to read HPB to understand HPB.  Only *after* we have an
understanding of HPB gained from her own writings, we are in a
position to intelligently read other's interpretations of her.

I raise this incident to also bring home another point:  It is
very easy for people to pass judgement upon others whom we have
never met.  Knowing so little about them, it becomes easy to
project parts of ourselves upon them in order to fill in the gaps
of what we don't know.  If we like the person, we are inclined to
project positive things.  If we don't like the person....   These
are subtle dynamics that are a part of human nature.  For myself,
I try to always be aware of the possibility of this dynamic.  It
is very easy for people to confuse their own feelings for those
of others.

As long as I'm on the subject of criticizing others, I may as
well go a little further and take it into a slightly different
context.  I think that defending and/or criticizing the leaders
of our theosophical past can be done constructively or
destructively.  An example of a destructive criticism was a
comment that reappeared almost monthly at one time on theos-l,
that HPB smoked Hashish.  Well, perhaps she did, but what is the
point of bringing it up?  If the point is raised as part of a
discussion concerning HPB's attitude about drugs, then it may be
a very relevant thing that requires consideration, and may lead
into some new insights.  On the other hand, to raise the issue
purely for its shock value is IMO neither constructive nor
instructive.  In the context of our discussion, I believe that
the historical evidence I have raised concerning TSR is very
relevant, and if you chose to give the information serious
consideration, it can be both constructive and instructive for
our conversation.
---------------------

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 exercise 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
HPB draws upon scientific, philosophical and religious writings
of great individuals in history for the purpose of illustrating a
set of doctrines that she is trying to set forth.  I hope we can
agree at least on this.  Yet, she recognizes each of these
"initiates" as a unique person who had a unique place in history
and a unique way of expressing themselves.  Plato may very well
have said the same thing as Lao Tse, and HPB may point this out.
But to use Lao Tse to interpret Plato or Plato to interpret Lao
Tse, HPB does not do--nor do I.  Instead, HPB will only point out
that here are two very unique individuals from different cultures
who are indicating the same great truth.  I never said that I
view any two systems as "differing in essence" I only said that I
will not start with the a priori assumption that they are the
same, nor will I begin with the assumption that one writer can
speak for another.  There is a very big difference here.

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
Yes, I recall the first time you stated this opinion.  However, I
do not see how you can draw from the conclusion that they are
teaching the same thing, therefore "a whole range of accusations
against TSR by devout theosophists can be disregarded."  As I
asked you before, which "accusations" can be disregarded as a
result that TSR and HPB taught the same thing?

As long as we are on this subject, I think I need to restate my
own position on this matter, as a point of clarification.  I have
never specifically denied nor affirmed for this discussion that
TSR and HPB taught the same thing.  I have only posed the opinion
that the point is irrelevant when the subject of examination is
HPB and CWL.  My point of concern here is that you want to draw
TSR into the discussion in the first place.  If the Discussion
was a comparison of HPB and TSR, then I would of course welcome
it, but not for a discussion of HPB and CWL.  If you want to
switch the discussion to a comparison of HPB and TSR, then that
is OK with me.  In that case I would have offered mu opinion
concerning the relationship of HPB and TSR's writings.  But my
opinion is a rather complex one.  Unlike your apparent positions
on the subject, mine is not at all so black and white.  At any
rate, if I were to pose my opinion, it is likely that we would
end up in a very long dialogue on this subject, and not get to
the subject at hand.  But even assuming that we had this dialogue
and came to an agreement,  I would still object to using TSR to
interpret HPB in either discussion.  Regardless of the similarity
or even the identity of their teachings.  HPB is HPB and TSR is
TSR.


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:

JHE
I recall your 4+3 post, but I was not following that thread at
the time, so I never saw the responses.

Kim
a) List-contributor A makes the deduction that TSR was under the
influence of left-hand adepts since he appeared to contradict his
heroine.

JHE
I would be interested in hearing the argument for this.

Kim
>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.

JHE
I would like to see this person's evidence.

Kim
>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).

JHE
I'm losing your train of thought here.  In the first place, I
raised the argument that "It was her mission" in context of TSR
developing an inimical relationship to HPB.  This argument was
*not* connected to "a's" or "b's" opinions concerning left hand
adepts" or "that his (TSR's) ideas consequently probably was the
first in a long line of misinformation and distortions of truth."

As I said before, I missed those postings, therefore was unaware
of them.  So how can I be building upon postings that I never
saw?

Kim
>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!

JHE
I don't follow you at all here.  Obviously you are alluding to
the quote on page 607, but this is a quote that *you* raised
on several occasions: not I.  My only guess as to what you are
talking about here, is that you might be assuming that I oppose
your contention that TSR was closer to HPB's ES teachings than
HPB was to her own ES teachings in her more exoteric
explanations.  If this is your assumption, then it is incorrect.
Rather, I find a lot of merit in this conclusion in terms of the
enumeration of the seven principles.

Kim
>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
Yes, I quoted deZirkoff from the text written by him, which is
the *same text* that you used to build your case.  I was
astounded by the way you had off handedly dismissed Boris
deZirkoff's conclusions concerning TSR.  It is more
understandable that you gave little credence to the evidence and
conclusions offered by Nicholas Weeks, Dan Caldwell and myself.
After all, you don't know any of us.  But you have Boris
deZirkoff to thank for being able to read HPB's collected
writings in the first place.  From the 1920's until his death in
1981, deZirkoff dedicated his life to the gathering of HPB's
writings into the twenty volumes that we have.  The 50 plus years
of research required to do bring together these writings was the
result of countless hours of correspondence with people and
governments all over the world, in numerous languages.  His
correspondence alone for this project filled an entire filing
cabinet.  He gathered information from people who personally knew
HPB, her relatives and associates.  He worked with the British
Museum and with Universities and archives all over the world to
search out the references used in HPB's writings, and to check
the accuracy of her quotations.  The encyclopedic reach of his
research was IMO astounding.  With one authority he would
correspond for the purpose of investigating nineteenth century
marriage laws in Russia.  With another, at the same time, he
would be getting a translation of some portion of some very
obscure esoteric Indian text.  He had within his files documents
that were unknown until he found them.  He had copies of material
that could only be found in the Adyar Archives (as if anyone was
allowed to see them).  It is because of Boris' work that it was
possible for later researchers to even put together a life of HPB
that was not a work of hopeless confusion.  It was Boris'
research and dedication that has made available what information
we have on HPB, as well as TSR, CWL, AB and so many others around
her--this is the same information which you selected from to base
your arguments.  Further, it was Boris' generosity that made all
of his research and these documents available to other researches
who were doing work along the same lines.

You want to so off-handedly dismiss Boris' arguments as being of
a "religious" nature?  So be it.  But I personally knew Boris,
and know something of the awesome amount of research he did for
over fifty years of his life.  I can assure you that he held to a
high standard of scholarship (not religious sentimentalism) that
would be acceptable in any university.  Boris' research into the
early days of theosophy is so pioneering and so extensive, that I
submit that it would be impossible to do a scholarly paper on the
same subject today without citing Boris' previous research.  It
would also be impossible not to cite source documents without
being indebted to Boris for bringing them to light in the first
place.

I'm sorry Kim, but I know far too much about the depth and extent
of Boris' research to dismiss his conclusions so lightly.  I also
knew him on another level.  I knew him as one of the most
profound students of Theosophical teachings that I have ever met.
Long before I became interested in the historical aspect of the
theosophical movement, I used to pose question after question to
him concerning theosophical teachings and used to be astounded at
his grasp of the teachings and the ease which he was able to come
up with numbers, dates, cycles, and to show the inter-
relationship of one teaching to another.

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
The speculation that it was a "lousy morning" is yours.  You are
welcome to it.  To me it is immaterial what kind of a morning it
was.  It could have been a lousy morning and she was suffering
from PMS to boot, and it still would have been immaterial.
Either she was working for the Masters or she was not.  The truth
or falsity of her statement here does not change with the weather
or with her mood.

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!

JHE
Once again, the agreement or disagreement of HPB's and TSR's
system is not the issue for a discussion concerning HPB and CWL.
Why do you keep raising this issue when I don't challenge it?
Rather, I keep repeating over and over that it is irrelevant to a
discussion of HPB and CWL.  My reference to Caldwell's
contribution concerns the issue that you keep denying--i.e. the
inimical relationship between HPB and TSR.  Dan  posted two
documents which support this contention of mine.  Nicholas Weeks
posted one, and I posted one or two.  How much more documentation
do you need before you even consider the possibility that the
relationship between them was inimical?
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
Sorry Kim.  We just have very different ways of looking at
things.  I distinguish an adept from an avatara (which I believe
Shankara to be).  An Avatara is overshadowed by another entity.
An Adept is operating from his own resources.  If you are
talking about genius that manifests through a short time of
exposure, then I would suggest that you bring up Mozart as an
example.  He composed music at four years old.  With a comparison
of this nature, then I would say "OK" point well taken.  But when
you start connecting "adepts" with "instant knowledge", you leave
me to wonder where you are going, so I'm cautious about this kind
of comparison.  Mozart, on the other hand, is a more familiar
example--but in my opinion his example makes a different point,
since I neither consider him an Avatara nor an Adept in the same
sense as TSR and Shankara.

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 analyze the role of TSR
>we can do it at a later time.

JHE
Great.  I move that we table the whole subject of TSR for a later
discussion that would involve him in the first place.

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.

JHE
Collaboration strongly supports the very concept of `esoteric
meaning' and `common truth'?   Yes, I agree, but the support is
circular.  That is, the conclusion already existed in the
assumption.

Yes, I agree, a scholarly "guess" would be that HPB and TSR
copied from each other.  It is a perfectly fine hypothesis to
begin with.

It appears to me that HPB is working from the assumption that the
Ancient Wisdom exists and that she is trying to give this out to
the world.  It is also evident that she knew that TSR was also
conversant with this Ancient Wisdom, and respected his knowledge
of it.  So, perhaps we have different assumptions as to HPB's
assumptions.

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

JHE
No, I take no offense at all.  Rather, I hope that this exchange
will clear up some mis-communications between us that I'm
now becoming aware of.  I had initially planned to summarize my
understanding of our assumptions for this post, but after reading
though your responses, I realized that it was premature to do
this as yet.  Maybe next time--or the next :-)

By the way, I also received your other post today that concerns
the teachings.  I will respond to it, but I have a paper that
rather urgently needs to be completed this week if I expect to
pass the class.  The paper concerns issues around the teaching of
writing to freshmen college students.  I find the paper a rather
unpleasant ordeal, and I have to write it in the register of
post-modern rhetoric--which I find even less pleasant.  By the
end of the week, I should be finished with the paper and will be
able to resume our conversation and answer your other post.

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