Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00803)

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.

JHE
I agree with your interpretation of how HPB sometimes handles
information here.  Often she will trace a word like "anima" or
"theos" or "christos"  to show an underlying esoteric concept.
However, the comparison of the ideas of two philosophers is IMO a
very different thing than what you are illustrating above.  If we
were trying to show the existence of a deeper meaning of a term
of say, "prakriti,"  as it is used among great occultists whom we
assume to be adepts, say HPB, TSR and CWL, then I would say that
HPB's approach you outline here is a good way to go.  However, I
thought the point of the discussion was to compare the ideas of
HPB and CWL on the subject of the seven principles?  If that is
the subject, then we are bound to their ideas, not to a deeper
esoteric meaning that may or may not be correct, and cannot be
assumed to have been understood by either party.

How is it possible to isolate a philosopher in a fluent world of
thought?  For the purpose of comparing two philosophies, one just
does it.  How does one compare two red vases in a room full of
vases to determine that they are the same shade of red?  Just put
them together and compare them.  One is lighter, the other
darker, one a pinker shade, the other a bluer....

Kim
>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.

JHE
I did?  I thought I was responding to your insistence to use TSR
in this discussion.

Kim
>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?

JHE
I questioned TSR's ability to explain the term "prakriti"?  I
Don't recall saying that.  Further, I find it hard to believe
that I said that.  Actually, our study group is currently reading
one of TSR's articles, and I prepared a lesson around it.  The
article says a lot about prakriti, but it never occurred to me to
question his understanding or his ability to explain it.  It
appears that we have been on very different tracks here.  Perhaps
you are alluding to my insistence that each writer represents
his/herself?

Kim
>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
You are proposing here an entirely different discussion with
different issues than the one I began with Jerry S. that you
asked to continue.  Jerry S. and I were comparing the teachings
of HPB and CWL regarding the seven principles.  My understanding
is that in order to do this, one interprets what HPB says, then
interpret what CWL says on the same subject, then compare the
ideas.  Now, am I to understand that you do not want to focus on
what HPB and CWL says about a term, but to examine the terms
themselves through "corroborating evidence" in order to come up
with an interpretation independent of HPB's and CWL's
interpretations.  Am I correct?  If so, then you are proposing a
totally different discussion that has the potential of drawing in
the entire canon of the worlds sacred literature and esoteric
texts.  Such a discussion of even one term could take lifetimes,
and even my library with the Adyar library and the Library of
Congress combined would not have the resources for a thorough
inquiry.
.............................

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
No.  His ability is irrelevant.  I take it that you are alluding
to this quote:

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
Well, I see how this could have confused you.  The key word in
this quote is "system" which is broadly meant and goes beyond the
seven principles.  In the same sense as above, I would say that
Purucker, CWL, AB etc. also outlined a different system.  That
doesn't necessarily make their systems wrong, right, consistent
or inconsistent with HPB's.  It also does not deny that parts--
even major parts are them same.  For me to explain beyond this
would require a major paper that would require me to trace the
development of TSR's ideas in a chronological order and to take
into consideration a lot of historical information that you have
already expressed a dislike for.  Therefore, I suggest that we
don't get into it.  Suffice to say that I do not and did not
dispute a basic harmony between HPB's and TSR's systems of
principles in the areas that HPB had specified.

....................................

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.

JHE
Interesting opinion.


Kim
>You are furthermore supporting an idea by statements regarding
>the number of books published by BZ, the gratitude due to him,
>etc.

JHE
Please re-read my original post carefully, and please do listen
here:  My astonishment was at your off-handed dismissal of a
conclusion made by a man who accomplished over fifty years of
hard scholarly research.  I have personal knowlege of the extent
and quality of his research, and I assure you that it is far
beyond what most people ever even imagine.  My point is that BdeZ
was the greatest living authority on Blavatsky, her writings and
her associates.  Therefore I propose that his opinions and
conclusions merit serious consideration, as is due to any major
scholar in a field.


Kim
>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).

JHE
Part of the first piece supported you, and poart of it supported
me.  The whole of the second piece supported me.


Kim
>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.

JHE
I was referring to the quote Nicholas supplied from the Mahatma
Letters that supported me.  But it is interesting to know that
you credit Nicholas with the statemetn concerning "left hand
adepts."


Kim
>Regarding not "knowing you" (in the flesh, I gather). Words are
>more than sufficient to convey information on character.

JHE
Interesting

Kim
>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.

JHE
I would say that both evidences when taken in historical and
chronological sequence support my contentions.  The Mahatma
Letter in question was written in 1882, before the (alledged to
you) inimical relationship began.  The Olcott quote supports my
contention that a "dispute" occurred that widened into a
"breach."  That he spoke of HPB in the "old friendly way"
indicates to me that he did not involve others into the breath--
which say a lot for him.

Kim
Please remember that you brought the subject up!

JHE
I did?
............................................

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.

JHE
I don't know who suggested this (you don't think it was me, do
you?) and I'm not clear what is meant here anyway.  For instance,
the writer's suggestion here could mean that TSR tried to mislead
people by giving them false information, or it could mean that
TSR's writings are filled with blinds in order to veil some
deeper truths.  With the former interpretation I might agree with
you.  With the latter, I can't.

Kim
>In fact all the accusations forwarded on Theos-l since they were
>posted as a response to the apparent philosophical controversy.

JHE
I would have to look at them one by one.

.............................

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 occurring. 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
With your above acknowledgement that Shankara was an avatara, I
stand behind my original suggested comparison of TSR to Mozart
(which you edited out) as being more apt.  Your quote of Olcott's
above also supports my comparison as I see it.  For Mozart, how
could a four year old compose music unless a "storehouse" or
experience was also suddenly opened to him too.  Since an avatara
(Shankara) is overshadowed by another entity, or even another
entity incarnated within him, we have in a sense, an artificial
being.  Therefore, the "storehouse" of knowledge could have come
from the overshadowing entity, and not Shankara resources of past
experiences.  An adept (TSR perhaps), on the other hand is his
own person.  Therefore, I prefer the comparison of TSR to Mozart-
-not to Shankara.  TSR could be an adept of sorts, but I doubt
that he was an avatar.  Mozart was a musical adept, so to speak,
but hardly an avatara.  Therefore my problem with your original
statement was not whether adepts and avataras could be
storehouses of knowledge, but the implication that adepts and
avataras are so in the same way.  That is why I suggested the
comparison of Mozart to TSR as perhaps more apt.

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
I will be interested in your information for reasons totally
unrelated to the discussion I thought we were going to have.
What I need to know right now is, which of the two discussions do
you want to pursue?  I'm sure that you will disagree with me, but
I believe one discussion to be exclusive of the other.  However,
a comparison of HPB and CWL could be a step towards a discussion
of terms from corroborative evidence, but conclusions from the
latter cannot confirm the former, because in the latter, the
conclusions are already outlined in the assumptions.
...............................

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.
:-)

JHE
Great.  Our next step then will be to complete the assumption
section and the nomenclature sections.  I will then summarize
them and get your approval.  By that time you will have the CWL
charts, and we will have a common nomenclature to work with.
Then, unless you want to do something different, we can begin a
comparative discussion of the systems of HPB and CWL.  If you
would like, we could start with some of my so called "erroneous"
statements.

Well, time for bed, and a double effort on my paper tomorrow :-(

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       |
               ------------------------------------------