Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00788)

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 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.

Kim
Jerry, I project a lot of positive things into you. I was talking about
using a status as argumentation. Neither were you defending her, really,
since the argument was brought up in the 7 principles controversy. I never
judge anyone on 2 sentences among thousands.

JHE
Plato may very well ave 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.

Kim
   You are taking a very personal view (and very traditional view) of
philosophy and you may be missing my point. Do you know why the greek
concept "anima" was of great interest to HPB? Among other things because
anima (essence) and anima sarvam (essence of all) are two of the most
important concepts in the eastern esoteric works. The occurence in Greece
of this term shows the influence of eastern thought (or at least makes it
highly probable). A journey of thought-forms or a journey of a greek
scholar? How is it possible to isolate a philosopher in a fluent world of
thought?
   HPB always uses "esoteric meaning" to interpret anything.
   You started this voluminous side-track as a comment upon my short piece
of information - that both HPB and TSR used the term prakriti in the same
sense. I have seen every comment on TSR as a evaluation and criticism of
his ability to explain the term prakriti - I take that we are still having
the same discussion?
   The issue is not to interpret HPB but to interpret a series of occult
terms exactly like prakriti. I have several times asked you to overlook
evidence not within *your parameter* of this discussion - instead of
stalling it by arguing about it. I have never said HPB meant this or that
and used someone else as a source for it. What I have done - and will
continue to do - is to offer corroborating evidence for the meaning of a
term - not the opinion of HPB.
------------------------
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
Well, I must confess I have read all posts and remarks about TSR as
a critique of his ability to participate in such a discussion - not to
interpret
HPB, but to, now and then, give his opinion on an obscure term. As to
the incorrectness see a quote from yourself below.

JHE
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

Kim
   The idea is utterly ridiculous -  that the author of the lectures on the
Bhagavad Gita should be against giving out esoteric teachings (except
to englishmen). These constitute one of the best attempts to convey the
whole esoteric system in short-form ever published. You are furthermore
supporting an idea by statements regarding the number of books published
by BZ, the gratitude due to him, etc.
   As to "giving little credence" - Dan gave no conclusion but offered two
pieces of evidence. The first a piece which supported my case, the second
"a possible later opinion of HPB towards TSR". In my humble opinion there
is something rotten in the state of that letter. It send a cold shiver down
my spine ( I am not alien to mystical interpretations either).
   Nicholas may have built his conclusion upon the same letter. As credible
as accusing HPB of being taken over by left-hand adepts. Perhaps old
Sinnett got a similar letter. After the "rotten" bit I almost felt I got a
letter too, delayed for 100 years.
   Regarding not "knowing you" (in the flesh, I gather). Words are more
than sufficient to convey information on character.
   On evidence. If I posted the ML quote "He (TSR) has a perfect reverence
and adoration for - HPB" (XVII), and Olcott (Esoteric Writings p.XI) "A
dispute..which widened into a breach, arose between HPB and himself about
certain philosophical questions, but to the last he spoke of her, to us and
his family, in the old friendly way." would that proove or disproove any
philosophical tenet? Hardly! Instead of course it would disproove your
absolute statements regarding their relationship.
   Please remember that you brought the subject up!

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?

Kim
Let me quote yourself and refresh your memory:
" I think that it is clear from Subba Row's writings, from
1886 on, that he was trying to outline a system distinctly
different from HPB's."
This seemed as an objection as serious as your objection to the
planes and principles of CWL. Forgive me for dwelling on the subject
for some time.

JHE
."  As I asked you before, which "accusations" can be disregarded as a
result that TSR and HPB taught the same thing?

Kim
Among the "accusations"  fx. the idea that TSR supplied misinformation
out of antagonism towards divulging esoteric secrets. In fact all the
accusations forwarded on Theos-l since they were posted as a response to
the apparent philosophical controversy.
----------------------------
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.

JHE
Sorry Jerry. "Sankaracharya the greatest of the Esoteric masters of
India". (SD Commentary, stanza 4.1) A master, a great initiate,
an avatara. But if you mean that he did not have to run the course
of evolution on Earth, you are partly right. But it does not change the
fact that both Shankara and TSR were examples of sudden knowledge
occuring. For a description by Olcott, see p. XIII of "Esoteric Writings":
"It was as though a storehouse of occult experience, long forgotten, had
suddenly been opened to him;"
---------------------------------
JHE
Collaboration (corroboration surely? ) 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.

Kim
Some of my favorite works are built upon such a concept! Never mind!
I will forward all evidence I can locate in the writings of HPB. What I
cannot locate I must find in my memory. It was never a problem in the first
place.

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

Kim
Agreed! These will remain my last words on the subject - for now. :-)


In friendship,

Kim