From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 00:35:27 -0500 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: AAB/HPB Arvind You wrote: > In response to your last message, let me propose that we call > the 'objective' Secret Doctrine as SD and HPB's writing of the > same title as "HPB's SD". I am guilty of having used the > abbreviation SD to refer to both in the past and it is likley > that we'll be using these for a long time to come, hence the > need for you to either concur with what I propose or let me > know what you are comfortable with and we can use that. Looking at this from the point of view of laziness on my part--i.e. to find the easiest way to accomplish a task, I would propose that we use TSD for HPB's book. SD for the subject matter of TSD is fine. > I was indeed suggesting that the theogonic key is the key that > AAB has applied to SD (not HPB's SD). The reasons why I say > this are several. If you refer to the 'Foreword' of TCF,p.xii, > > review the five objectives for TCF(I am reproducing brief > portions below; text within square brackets is mine): [stuff deleted] Then we are back to the problem as to why Foster Bailey wrote: H.P.B. stated that in the 20th century a disciple would come who would give the psychological key to her own monumental work ~The Secret Doctrine~ on which the writings of the Tibetan worked with her...(TCF viii). It is clear that Foster Bailey was referring to TSD not the SD. I suggested three possible solutions to this problem which I will requote: Thus, if AAB is saying that TCF is the "psychological key" to ~The Secret Doctrine,~ then, in light of the above, two possibilities of her meaning come to mind: 1. She doesn't know what she is talking about. 2. She is not referring to the seven keys at all, but is really saying that TCF is an interpretation of ~The Secret Doctrine~ from a psychological context. I already discussed this alternative in my Jan 18th message to you, and unless you have another possibility in mind, this seems to be the most feasible. But if TCF is only a psychological commentary, then this is much less profound then what most readers assume she means. As I had mentioned in my Jan. 18th message, the text of HPB's "prediction" would probably clarify things. A third possibility comes to mind, that the statement was a misprint in AAB's books that nobody ever bothered to change, and that she was not referring to ~The Secret Doctrine,~ at all, but that TCF is the psychological key to the Secret Doctrine. The only problem with this alternative, is that HPB does not have a "psychological key." Therefore it appears that your solution (that TCF is the "psychological key" to the SD.) follows my third possible scenario--that Foster Bailey's statement is a misprint (or a mistake) that nobody ever bothered to change--i.e. that he misquoted or misunderstood H.P.B.'s prophecy to refer to THE, when it really referred to the SD. But until we find the text of this prophecy, we won't be able to clarify this. Now regarding your argument that the Theogonic key is the same as the psychological key--I will repeat my original response, then your answer, followed by my response to your answer: My original response: Your suggestion that the Psychological Key is AAB's term for the Theogonic Key is inconsistent with the information we have. The term "psychological key" is supposed to have been taken from a "prediction" made by HPB; therefore it was HPB's term, and AAB is presumably using HPB's meaning. Since we can't find the "prediction," we can't verify what HPB meant (let alone verify the existence of the prediction). If the two terms are synonymous, then why is this yet to be found "prediction" the only instance in all of HPB's twenty volumes of writings, where she uses the term "psychology" in this way? Your answer: > See above. In your mind, do you make a distinction between a > prediction and a prophecy? If so, it is a prophecy that AAB is > referring to and not a prediction of HPB. My response to you: In this context, I'm not making a distinction between prediction and prophecy. "prediction" is in quotes because I was using the term you used. Substitute the word "prophecy" for "prediction" and my meaning remains exactly the same. Still, my issue and question above have not been addressed. In reply to my statement below: >> Besant and Leadbeater did throw away many of HPB's terms in >> favor of their own, and has caused endless confusion among >> readers who try to make Besant and Leadbeater jive with >> Blavatsky. You Wrote: > Yeah, there is a problem of jiving the various terms; in > particular it appears that AAB has used the terms coined by > Leadbeater and Besant, but let us not be hasty to conclude that > this implies that AAB agreed with what Leadbeater or Besant > taught (I have reproduced sometime back portions of the AAB > autobiography which are clearly very critical of Besant and > Leadbeater). AAB may have employed the terms used by > Leadbeater/Besant as they were the ones most familiar to her, > or most in vogue those days within theosophical circles. I think you have made a very important point when you write that AAB may have employed terms used by Leadbeater/Besant. The critical question is whether or not her meanings of the terms are consistent with Besant/Leadbeater or with Blavatsky. If she uses a term used exclusively by Besant/Leadbeater, and not by Blavatsky, then we have to assume that she is also appropriating Besant/Leadbeater's meaning of the term, unless we can prove otherwise. >> I think a clarification is in order here. By E.S. >> materials, I was not referring to HPB's, but to Besant and >> Leadbeater's E.S. material. This material is entirely >> different from HPB's. > Well, I am back to square one on this one. And I am afraid > that I cannot comment further on this until I see what Besant > and Leadbeater's ES material looks like. I have seen a lot of > the AS material and that jives perfectly in my opinion with > what I have learnt from HPB's books. Can you tell me in which > published books of AAB this Leadbeater/Besant ES material may > have appeared (your conjectures will be fine)? Also, I have to > point out that HPB in 'Key to Theosophy' has talked very highly > about Besant, and in fact has quoted from Besant ('Study in > Consciousness') so unless you point out something specific in > these ES teachings that is against what HPB taught, it may be > that there is validity in these ES materials as well. Your request puts me into a bit of a bind. Though I am not bound by any pledges not to reveal this material, nor did my source break any pledges, I still have come concern about raising the ire of pledged members who believe that this material should be kept secret. I'm willing to risk their anger, and reveal the contents of some of this material, if any real good were to come out of it. So I will have to put the question back to you by asking: If by revealing the contents of the E.S. materials, I show that key teachings in AAB's writings are in previously published E.S. writings that she had seen, then what would this mean to you? Regarding your allusion to the KEY TO THEOSOPHY, the Clara Codd version you are using is less than half the size of the original, and the material has been completely rearranged into the editor's own agenda as to what she wants to address--so that the questions no longer follow in the same context as the original, and half the book was edited out. I hope someday you get and read the original version of the KEY TO THEOSOPHY, as Blavatsky intended it to be--not Clara Codd's abortion. Also: how Clara Codd got Blavatsky to quote from Besant's A STUDY IN CONSCIOUSNESS (1902) in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (1889), when the former was published thirteen years after the latter, and Blavatsky was long dead (1891), strikes me as miraculous. Either you mis-read this, or else this is an example of Miss Codd rewriting history. Your point that H.P.B. had talked very highly about Besant is true. But you need to keep in mind that Besant joined the Theosophical Society in 1889, and Blavatsky died in 1891-so they knew each other for less than two years. Besant's book, A STUDY IN CONSCIOUSNESS was published about 1902, and may be consistent with Blavatsky--or may be it is not--I would have to make a comparative study. Besant began her collaboration with Leadbeater, and neo-theosophy was born as early as 1895. > Best Wishes on your academic studies (one day I hope you will > write some more about what exactly you are covering in school). I'm an English major in a masters program. At the moment we are concentrating on what I have dubbed as "psycho-linguistic- postmodernism" The class I'm winding up right now is a critical study in Poe's short story "The Purloined Letter" from the point of view of the Lacan School of psychoanalysis. The Lacanian school is based in linguistics and anthropology, and was very influenced by Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, de Saussure, Levi-Strauss etc. instead of the biological sciences as in the Freudian School. This approach to the nature of reality is called "postmodern," and plays a very large part in shaping the upcoming major paradigm shift of thinking that the western world is on the verge of experiencing. Tomorrow, I'm supposed to give an hour oral presentation on the common grounds of thinking between Hegel and Lacan, concerning how the latter used and reinterpreted the former's ideas on the nature of reality and consciousness. It's very complex stuff--I find myself spending one or two hours on a single page working through it just to grasp the ideas. Even our Professor is still struggling to understand much of it. Much of it is very Zen-like in that much of it cannot be intellectually grasped--it has to be understood through other faculties of perception--not the conscious mind. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 00:58:13 -0500 From: Rodrigo de Ferres Subject: Re: More Math On Sun, 30 Jan 1994 daratman@aol.com wrote: > A frequent quotation I've seen here is "As above, so below". The > other half of that quote is "...but vice-versa". If you visualize > the first half of the statement you will have a picture and its > mirror image, like a sunrise over a pond. Adding the second half > flips the reflection horizontally, like the two faces on a playing > card: As above, so below O I but vice-versa O I > O I I O Not to quibble, but, I believe the quote you are referring to is: That which is above is at that which is below, and that which is below is as that which is above. This comes from the Emerald Tablet of Hermes, and refers to the central principle behind all Hermetic teachings, namely that the Macrocosm and the Microcosm are separate yet one, God is in man, as man is in god, and together the two are one. Differentiation (above vs. below) is useful for analyzing and cataloguing traits and characteristics, but after a point, it detracts from the underlying universal truth of oneness. I apologize to all readers, if my comments are out of line with your normal methods and ideology, but I am not a Theosophist, but rather a Hermeticist. The above comment sparked my interest. > These four quotations have great significance to the ongoing > discussion here, because they are all true. So, ultimately, they > are connected to the same source. Translated into any language > they have the same meaning. Translated into the language of the > Universe, they need no other translation. Someone mentioned that > as we approach this Truth, any linguistic symbolism begins to > break down. Eldon said we can only smile. But there is a point > beyond, where we catch our second wind, our second sight. The nature of symbols is to overcome this inability of human communication, to a certain point. Symbols speak to the subconscious, relaying concepts that language cannot do as efficiently, or perhaps they tap into stored memories that are already there, dormant. There is much support for this view in the methods of qabalistic pathworking in my tradition. But, the problem with symbols is that often we fail to recognize the Truth that is represented by the symbol and see only the outward appearance of the symbol. > Let's say you have a string 84 units long, tuned to 264 cycles per > second (C) and you want to put a fret somewhere that will generate > a tone of 352 cycles per second (F). Where do you put the fret? > Since the ratio of the higher note to the lower note is 352/264 > (4/3), the fret is placed 3/4 of the distance from the bridge > (63 units - as above, so below but vice-versa). This represents > the Physical/Metaphysical duality. This is an interesting relationship. I do not see this in the same manner that I believe you do. To me, the Emerald Tablet and similar relationships in such things as the Tree of Life of the Qabalah teach that duality is the appearance of things, that unity, or balance, is the true nature of all things, man, god, the universe. In fact, I do not believe duality exists, except in its role in relational comparisons. This is the doctrine of the Three Pillars. Black and white are dualistic extremes, balanced by neutrality, thus becoming three, not two, which in turn forms a new unity, but at a different level. One to two to three to one. We are neither male nor female, but both in neither. This is not paradox, it is balance. This returns to the emerald tablet, as above, so below, and as below, so above. We are all things, good and evil, light and dark, male and female, but in them we are whole, we are one, we are balanced. Or at least we should aim to be. > The Hebrews apparently liked a Circumference divisible > by 22, the Greeks by 24. Could this be related to the fact that Hebrew had 22 letters in their alphabet and the Greeks 24, with each letter of the alpahbet being a number. Thus the circle, reprenting many esoteric concepts, equally divisible by all of Number, indeed this is powerful magic. Additionally, bearing Gematria in mind, this is not unlike certain methods employed in talismanic magic. > In Astrology/Astronomy the geometric calculations of planetary and > constellational positions can be translated into structures and > musical compositions. In fact, if you put them on a transparency > and flip them over, you can plot the stars onto the face of the > Earth and build representations of them. The zero point is located > where the sun would be at the Winter Solstice of a particular year. > Someone built a Great Pyramid there. Any connections to HPB? Sounds too much like proof texting to me. I can take a handfull of sand, toss it on a map and prove whatever I want. Too many variables in this example for me to believe, I was with you pretty much until this one. > Daniel Hampson Rodrigo de Ferres (sorry to be so impolite in my first post to you list) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 01:26:44 -0500 From: Rodrigo de Ferres Subject: Re: thoughts on imaginary numbers This is a followup to Eldon's (I believe) post. I enjoyed his post, and thought I would add my own observations. There is a big difference between negative existance and negative polarity. Let's deal with the latter first. A negative polarity is a magnitude, a real physical (so to speak) property with a negative, relative position or direction. It exists. It can be measured. It can be observed. It is as completely manifest as a positive polarity. The negative sign is a "special" thing in that we arbitrarily choose to assign it to one of two dualistic extremes. If you are further down the scale, say at -4, a -2 is positive in relation to you. So the "imaginary" number is more a property of the "special" attribute of the sign than the number. Negative existence is another thing altogether and is beyond the abilities of my poor communication skills to describe for it is unmanifest and non existant. In Hebrew, and in the Qabalah, this is referred to as Ain, or nothingness. Ain is best represented mathematically by the concept of zero, which I noticed was left out of Eldon's post. It is interesting to see how zero would fit in. Also, I see 1 a bit differently. One is balance, this is true. Unity is balance, because it has no poles, no extremes. But, it is incomplete, for there is nothing with which it may be compared. One is the first point of manifestation, out of the great sea of limiless potential. And, by its mere popping into existance, one creates 2. For as soon as you have one, you have all that is not one, thus duality formed simultaneously with unity. Therefore one is unity but, this is an inferior unity, a pale reflection of the divine Unity (which is trinary in nature, Ain, Ain Soph, and Ain Soph Aur, 3 in 1). 1 is active, male and formative, 2 is passive, female and destructive. Either canot exist without its mate. But, neither is beneficial on its own, excess chaos is as bad as exces order and vice versa. Balance occurs as the two extremes battle to gain dominance, pushing and pulling, pulling and pushing. The point between them is the balanced point, and a new manifestation, the third point, which brings with it dimension as well as a return to unity and a completion of the emulation of the divine trinity, but at a lower level of manifestation. This also shows the axiom of "As above, so below" in action. Rodrigo From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 10:25:51 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Psychological Key Dear Arvind, There's gotta be some kind of mistake in attributing praise of AB and her Study in Consciousness to HPB in the Key. Or else I missed something in my reading of it. You must be seeing an interpolation by Clara Codd or some other Adyar person. Study in Consciousness appeared years after the Key. One of the big objections of Judgeites against Adyar is the policy of disfiguring HPB's writings-- but this isn't being done any more and I doubt anything in print would mislead in the way this edition of the Key did. Can you supply the quote in question so we can maybe figure out what's going on? Fraternally Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 15:23:37 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Radhasoami in the MLS To Terry Hobbes and other interested persons-- Juergensmeyer's Radhasoami Reality addresses Theosophical connections briefly but helpfully. Re Daniel's noting a reference in the MLs to Salig Ram, my edition calls him Suby Ram, surely a transcription mistake by Barker-- who called Sumangala "Samanyala"-- unless there's another ref. I'm not seeing. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 23:04:02 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: ABesant Quoted in Key Hi Paul/Jerry H-E, This is regarding the following statement in a message that I posted yesterday: "Also, I have to point out that HPB in 'Key to Theosophy' has talked very highly about Besant, and in fact has quoted from Besant ('Study in Consciousness') so unless you point out something specific in these ES teachings that is against what HPB taught, it may be that there is validity in these ES materials as well." I have the following comments on it today: (a)I am glad to see that there are others besides Jerry H-E and myself who are following along our discussions (I have often shied away from asking others questions in the middle of a message on AAB/HPB because I am not sure whether others are reading this stuff or not; now I know that at least Paul reads the AAB/HPB discussion). (b)I do remember having read a quote from ABesant on 'consciousness' in one of the several books/journals recently, but I have read so voraciously in the past few days that I obviously have mixed up my references. I was going thru the Clara Codd edition of the Key (which indeed is the only edition I have currently with me) today in an effort to see what I could find about ABesant in it, but alas, it does not have an index, and the only quote I could find was on p.143: "What I am about to read to you is from the pen of a national saviour [Clara Codd has put a footnote to indicate that HPB is referring to ABesant here], one who, having overcome self, and being free to choose, has elected to serve humanity, in bearing at least as much as a woman's shoulders can possibly bear of national Karma. This is what she says: [There is a long quote here which has very little to do with consciousness; at least it is not the quote that I was hoping to find]." So I am sorry for having misled you by insunuating that HPB had quoted from ABesant's 'Study in Consciousness'. I donot see any quote in the Key either by HPB or by Clara from 'Study in Consciousness'. I should also like to take the opportunity to say that I found Clara Codd's version of the Key to be extremely easy to read and for many this may be the perfect book to read, esp. those who find HPB's writing style difficult to follow (I am not one of them but I know there are many out there in this category). One of these days I will have the Index to HPB's CWs, and I hope then I should be able to look up all references by HPB to ABesant, and possibly consciousness (in the meantime if anyone out there can do it for me, that will be great). Also, I am going to 'scratch my head a bit more' to figure out where I saw the quote on consciousness by ABesant (it certainly presented ABesant in an excellent light). Also, Paul, I contacted the local Radhasoami couple that I know, in order to find info for you. BTW, they are vegetarians and they are famous for throwing parties which I have attended with my family at which no alcohlic beverages are served. They gave me the name of the local coordinator for the Radhasoamis in the Dallas/Fortworth area (apprently they meet every so often regularly); so you can feel free to contact this person at the following phone numbers to get any info about Radasoamis you want: Janaki Viswanathan (214 231 4444 Res; 214 442-4143 ofc). I am not sure if you want me to contact this person (it will be a local call for me) but I thought I'd give this info to you anyways. > There's gotta be some kind of mistake in attributing praise of > AB and her Study in Consciousness to HPB in the Key. Or else I > missed something in my reading of it. You must be seeing an > interpolation by Clara Codd or some other Adyar person. Study > in Consciousness appeared years after the Key. > > One of the big objections of Judgeites against Adyar is the > policy of disfiguring HPB's writings-- but this isn't being > done any more and I doubt anything in print would mislead in > the way this edition of the Key did. Can you supply the quote > in question so we can maybe figure out what's going on? Fraternally, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 12:50:55 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: Comments to Rodrigo and others Rodrigo _______ I am glad to see your first couple of messages on theos-l. You wrote, among other things: >I apologize to all readers, if my comments are out of line with your >normal methods and ideology, but I am not a Theosophist, but rather a >Hermeticist. I'd like to point out that the real qualification to be a theosophist is not belonging to a theosophical orgganization, but rather your outlook on life/attitudes/character; HPB has pointed out at many places that most theosophists are 'outside the membership of the theosophical society'! So, as long as you are searching for the truth, you are one of us in this group. I donot believe that we have a 'normal methods and ideology'! I also happen to know about your intense interest in Magick, and the works of Dion Fortune. Perhaps you can say a few words about these when possible, as also your experience in being associated with the BBS on New Age type of topics in the North Carolina area (there are many in this group belonging to the NC area who may like to look into that BBS). Jerry S. ________ Thanks for your suggestions on how to use dreams as tools of learning. I have noticed a change in my attitude during the dream state over the years to the same or similar stimulii, and I am going to be a more careful observer of my thoughts/feelings/actions during the dream state (as much as I try to do this during the wakeful state also). Jim Anderson ____________ You wrote an excellent, insightful message (a long one with something for almost everyone on theos-l) sometime back but have not posted anything lately (and I donot believe I saw any answer from you to Jerry H-E's follow-up message to you). I'd love to hear from you more often, if it is possible for you to spend more time on theos-l at all. Best Regards to all/Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 15:04:51 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Besant, Blavatsky and History Arvind > So I am sorry for having misled you by insunuating that HPB > had quoted from ABesant's 'Study in Consciousness'. I donot > see any quote in the Key either by HPB or by Clara from 'Study > in Consciousness'. I should also like to take the opportunity > to say that I found Clara Codd's version of the Key to be > extremely easy to read and for many this may be the perfect > book to read, esp. those who find HPB's writing style difficult > to follow (I am not one of them but I know there are many > out there in this category). Since I had already acknowledged that Blavatsky spoke highly of Besant during the former's last two years on earth, I don't see any need for you to spend time digging up proof of it. I'm aware of her public praise for Besant, and have probably seen all of it at one time or another. The other side of the story, is that Blavatsky was also sometimes critical of Besant, but for some reason that you may be able to guess, the Adyar Society tends not to publish those instances. Blavatsky also speaks highly of Col. Olcott in public, but privately, her attitude was very different, and in one letter she even calls him an "ass." Probably the person who gets the most praise from Blavatsky, both publicly and privately, was Judge. But since the Adyar Society doesn't publish any Judge material, we never hear about it. Judge was accredited with genuine occult status by Blavatsky, who said that he was under the influence of a Nirmanakaya. Blavatsky made Judge the "sole representative" of the American ES. Blavatsky made Besant the Recording Secretary of the British Section ES (i.e. she took notes on business conducted). I'm bringing this up in order to put a little perspective on your campaign to prove that Blavatsky spoke highly of Besant. Regarding Clara Codd's version of THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, the point that Paul and I were trying to make is that Besant's A STUDY IN CONSCIOUSNESS was written 13 years after THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY WAS PUBLISHED and 11 years after HPB died. Therefore it is not possible for HPB to have quoted from a book written 11 years after she was dead. Paul and I were also trying to point out (Paul was being more direct than I) that Codd's version of THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY is a butchered version of the original, where half of the contents was discarded. Paul uses the euphemism "disfiguring HPB's writings," but our messages are essentially the same i.e.: the Adyar Society has a long held policy of omitting, changing, re-editing and/or adding false statements in theosophical literature in order to suppress information and to rewrite history to make it appear that Theosophy is a continuous and harmonious revelation from Blavatsky down to today. Nother could be further from the truth. Paul says that this "disfiguring" isn't being done anymore. I don't know. The last instance of this being done that came to my attention was around 1989, but I haven't been watching lately. Let us take the example before us: Clara Codd's version of THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY. You cited a letter quoted in the KEY, which Codd appended a footnote identifying the author of that letter as Annie Besant. In the original edition, the author is not identified. I would ask, how does she know it was Besant? Is Codd guessing? Is she repeating second hand information? Or did she locate the original of that letter, from which she determined the author? We will never know, because Codd doesn't cite the source of her information. Theosophical history is a tangled mess of wrong dates and wrong identifications because of this kind of sloppy methodology (sometimes inadvertent, sometimes intentional). Now we have generations of theosophical students who take it on faith that Besant wrote that letter, and would never think to question it. Yet those who are discriminating enough in their reading to ask these kinds of questions are not given the information needed to evaluate the veracity of the information. Multiply this minor incident a thousand times, and you will begin to get a picture of the mess we are left with. Now look at Section IX of Codd's version of the KEY. It is titled "On Life After Death." The corresponding section in the original edition is called "On the Kama-Loka and Devachan." Why did Miss Codd rename this section, when all of the other's retain their original names? This section also happens to be where HPB enumerates and defines the seven human principles in detail. But all of this is cut out in Codd's version. Why? Could it be that because Besant and Leadbeater renamed and redefined the seven principles, the editor thought that it would be better not to "confuse" the reader with the fact that HPB had a different system with different definitions? Inconvenient material such as this may stimulate an actively questioning reader to compare the systems, and perhaps draw the "wrong" conclusions. It took me about two minutes to discover these discrepancies in Codd's version of the KEY. Imagine what I might find if I put an hour into it. A theosophical historian once concluded a conference paper with the observation that the Theosophical Society ought to be more straight forward about their practices and change their motto to: "There is no religion higher than (a carefully edited version of the) truth." I would strongly recommend that you take some time to start reading histories in order to get your sense of chronology straight. Past statements about returning ES material to Judge in 1921, or Blavatsky quoting from a book written eleven years after she was dead, are obvious blunders you wouldn't make if you took the time to read some theosophical history. Or at least, please give it some thought--It will give you a whole new perspective. Best Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 15:19:18 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: AAB/HPB Hi Jerry H-E, > > Looking at this from the point of view of laziness on my > part--i.e. to find the easiest way to accomplish a task, I would > propose that we use TSD for HPB's book. SD for the subject > matter of TSD is fine. SD and TSD is fine with me. > Therefore it appears that your solution (that TCF is the > "psychological key" to the SD.) follows my third possible > scenario--that Foster Bailey's statement is a misprint (or a > mistake) that nobody ever bothered to change--i.e. that he > misquoted or misunderstood H.P.B.'s prophecy to refer to THE, > when it really referred to the SD. But until we find the text of > this prophecy, we won't be able to clarify this. Foster Bailey wrote the preface to TCF in 1950, after AAB had passed on. I donot know what the 'occult status' of FB was, and it is possible that as he was writing the 'Introduction' to TCF', he only wanted to say a few words about the reasons why TCF was written, without being too concerned about the disfference between the key to SD or TSD. You seem to have done a lot of research in this area but I venture to say that most ordinary readers of SD or TCF are not concerned about this distinction. May I suggest that we take Foster's (and AAB's) statements that TCF is a psychological key to SD at face value for now, and put this aside as one of the questions to be resolved? I plan to write to Lucis Trust about this question formally (and also to enquire if the manuscripts of AAB's writing are available for public view, and if the 'HPB papers that Mr. Prater gave AAB' are available to the public now). Perhaps you want to suggest some more questions before I send this request to Lucis. > Now regarding > your argument that the Theogonic key is the same as the > psychological key--I will repeat my original response, then your > answer, followed by my response to your answer: > > My original response: > > Your suggestion that the Psychological Key is AAB's term for > the Theogonic Key is inconsistent with the information we > have. The term "psychological key" is supposed to have been > taken from a "prediction" made by HPB; therefore it was > HPB's term, and AAB is presumably using HPB's meaning. Since > we can't find the "prediction," we can't verify what HPB > meant (let alone verify the existence of the prediction). > If the two terms are synonymous, then why is this yet to be > found "prediction" the only instance in all of HPB's twenty > volumes of writings, where she uses the term "psychology" in > this way? Let me paste a portion of my message of January 4 or 5: "In the meantime, I have finished reading SD and started reading Isis Unveiled (Adyar Edition edited by Boris de Zirkoff). And what do I find on p.xxvii of the Introductory material...a definition of Anthropology, as embracing among other things, psychology, with psychology, defined as "the science of soul, both as an entity distinct from the spirit and in its relations with the spirit and body". It proves to me that HPB's use of the term psychology is in the same exact sense as AAB's (see more references below as well)". HPB has used the term 'psychology' in the sense of the 'science of the soul' throughout her writings (I gave many examples in my previous message and have found several more in Isis Unveiled). The use of the term psychology by both HPB and AAB is to mean the same thing. On the other hand, I have not seen any place (other than the one cited by you) in HPB's writings where she has used the term 'theogonic'. I have not come across 'theogonic' in AAB's writing so far. It is possible that HPB may have used 'theogonic' instead of 'psychological' as she was always concerned about the use of the term psychology by the materialists to mean something totally different from what she meant to convey. AAB did not have that problem as she has clearly defined psychology to begin with and she (or the Tibetan) was aware of the stupedous amount of work that they were going to produce later, in the form of the two volumes of 'A Treatise on the Seven Rays' that deal with Esoteric Psychology. Remember that all references to the 'psychological key' that we have seen so far have come from either the autobiography or Foster Bailey's introduction to TCF, both of which were written after 1945, by which time AAB had finished writing her major works dealing with psychology. > I think you have made a very important point when you write > that AAB may have employed terms used by Leadbeater/Besant. The > critical question is whether or not her meanings of the terms are > consistent with Besant/Leadbeater or with Blavatsky. If she uses > a term used exclusively by Besant/Leadbeater, and not by > Blavatsky, then we have to assume that she is also appropriating > Besant/Leadbeater's meaning of the term, unless we can prove > otherwise. That may be the case, but this should be looked at on a case by case basis and not blindly. If you give me some examples of Besant/Leadbeater terms that AAB has employed (and HPB did not), I can dig out the references where the term may be defined in AAB books, and we can compare her meaning with that of HPB and others for similar terms. > > Your request puts me into a bit of a bind. Though I am not > bound by any pledges not to reveal this material, nor did my > source break any pledges, I still have come concern about raising > the ire of pledged members who believe that this material should > be kept secret. I'm willing to risk their anger, and reveal the > contents of some of this material, if any real good were to come > out of it. So I will have to put the question back to you by > asking: If by revealing the contents of the E.S. materials, I > show that key teachings in AAB's writings are in previously > published E.S. writings that she had seen, then what would this > mean to you? It is hard to say what they may mean to me. But I have a problem with anyone 'lifting' someone else's material and using it as his/her own without at least a due acknowledgement. I am quite satisfied as to why AAB used HPB's inner teachings/ES material etc. as she has freely stated in her autobiography the reasons for doing so. I'd like to know why she used Leadbeater/Besant ES teaching as her own (perhaps that will become clear as I come across these teachings). The teachings themselves have to stand on their own. I donot believe that anyone is 100% right or 100% wrong, and HPB herself freely admitted that her own writings could have errors in them. If the Leadbeater/Besant teaching that AAB used is misleading or incorrect or inconsistent with what else I believe to be true, I will reject it. However, let me hasten to say that to date I have seen nothing in AS teaching or AAB writings that I can place in this category of misleading teaching. > > Regarding your allusion to the KEY TO THEOSOPHY, the Clara > Codd version you are using is less than half the size of the > original, and the material has been completely rearranged into > the editor's own agenda as to what she wants to address--so that > the questions no longer follow in the same context as the > original, and half the book was edited out. I hope someday you > get and read the original version of the KEY TO THEOSOPHY, as > Blavatsky intended it to be--not Clara Codd's abortion. Also: > how Clara Codd got Blavatsky to quote from Besant's A STUDY IN > CONSCIOUSNESS (1902) in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (1889), when the > former was published thirteen years after the latter, and > Blavatsky was long dead (1891), strikes me as miraculous. Either > you mis-read this, or else this is an example of Miss Codd > rewriting history. I hope you have read my message of yesterday on this. I am still trying to figure out how I managed to make such a booboo! > I'm an English major in a masters program. At the moment we > are concentrating on what I have dubbed as "psycho-linguistic- > postmodernism" The class I'm winding up right now is a critical > study in Poe's short story "The Purloined Letter" from the point > of view of the Lacan School of psychoanalysis. The Lacanian > school is based in linguistics and anthropology, and was very > influenced by Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, de Saussure, > Levi-Strauss etc. instead of the biological sciences as in the > Freudian School. This approach to the nature of reality is > called "postmodern," and plays a very large part in shaping the > upcoming major paradigm shift of thinking that the western world > is on the verge of experiencing. Tomorrow, I'm supposed to give > an hour oral presentation on the common grounds of thinking > between Hegel and Lacan, concerning how the latter used and > reinterpreted the former's ideas on the nature of reality and > consciousness. It's very complex stuff--I find myself spending > one or two hours on a single page working through it just to > grasp the ideas. Even our Professor is still struggling to > understand much of it. Much of it is very Zen-like in that much > of it cannot be intellectually grasped--it has to be understood > through other faculties of perception--not the conscious mind. > Wow, I am amazed at what you do as part of a Master's program in English. Are you evaluated on your command of the language or the ability to decipher these difficult to read materials (are they all written in English??) ? BTW, an elder brother of mine and an elder sister, and a brother-in-law of mine back home in India have each done a Master's in English as well, and all three of them have been teaching college level English for some time. I did not realize how close this subject is to philosophy! I was curious about the cover of Parucker's ES instructions; it seems to have letters that belong to some language. I could recognize some of them as belonging to Sanskrit/Hindi but others escaped any recognition. Fraternally, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 16:15:59 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Besant, Blavatsky and History The question of HPB's genuine attitudes toward various Theosophists is confusing due to the conflicting evidence. In Judge's case, Michael Gomes's research shows that he didn't escape her wrath either. I understand that she abuses Olcott a lot in the forthcoming letters volume of the BCW. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are Olcott letters somewhere just as critical of her. One case usually misunderstood, I think, is that of Franz Hartmann. In letters to Sinnett, HPB portrays him as unreliable and dishonest. But in letters to Hartmann she makes it clear that she had been led astray by false stories about him, and now (1886) had the highest regard for him. One thing I hope the new volume of letters will do is liberate the Theosophical movement from seeing HPB through Sinnett's eyes. Since the two of them ended up so mutually hostile, one cannot help wondering just how honest she would have been with him-- as compared to, say, Hartmann-- on important elements in her life. I have mentioned here before that the version of Master M. told to Sinnett ended up being orthodox Theosophical dogma despite conflicting with at least three other versions-- mutually contradictory themselves. Why would Sinnett be the one she would choose to tell the real truth? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 16:44:44 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: Theosophical History Jerry H-E/Paul: What is a good book to get a perspective on theosophical history? Am I correct in assuming that there is another volume of HPB Collected Writings coming that will contain her letters? Also, is the original Key to Theosophy included in one of these volumes of CWs? > The question of HPB's genuine attitudes toward various > Theosophists is confusing due to the conflicting evidence. In > Judge's case, Michael Gomes's research shows that he didn't > escape her wrath either. I understand that she abuses Olcott a > lot in the forthcoming letters volume of the BCW. Below Paul is mentioning that the Theosophical movement looks at HPB through Sinnett's eyes. What does it mean? This is directly opposed to my impression that most mainline theosophists have greater regard for HPB than for Sinnett. Does this have anything to do with the Mahatma Letters to Sinnett? At least publicly (in SD) HPB has lavishly praised Sinnett and referred to Esoteric Buddhism rather frequently as a genuine theosophical work. > > One thing I hope the new volume of letters will do is liberate > the Theosophical movement from seeing HPB through Sinnett's > eyes. Since the two of them ended up so mutually hostile, one > cannot help wondering just how honest she would have been with > him-- as compared to, say, Hartmann-- on important elements in > her life. I have mentioned here before that the version of > Master M. told to Sinnett ended up being orthodox Theosophical > dogma despite conflicting with at least three other versions-- > mutually contradictory themselves. Why would Sinnett be the > one she would choose to tell the real truth? > Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 17:59:26 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: Re: Besant, Blavatsky and History >Blavatsky > made Judge the "sole representative" of the American ES. > Blavatsky made Besant the Recording Secretary of the British > Section ES (i.e. she took notes on business conducted). I'm > bringing this up in order to put a little perspective on your > campaign to prove that Blavatsky spoke highly of Besant. I have not read anything written by Judge so far, but thanks for this 'perspective'. Nother could be further from the truth. > Paul says that this "disfiguring" isn't being done anymore. I > don't know. The last instance of this being done that came to my > attention was around 1989, but I haven't been watching lately. And what was the book or topic in 1989 that was 'disfigured'? > > Now look at Section IX of Codd's version of the KEY. It is > titled "On Life After Death." The corresponding section in the > original edition is called "On the Kama-Loka and Devachan." Why > did Miss Codd rename this section, when all of the other's retain > their original names? This section also happens to be where HPB > enumerates and defines the seven human principles in detail. But > all of this is cut out in Codd's version. Why? Could it be that > because Besant and Leadbeater renamed and redefined the seven > principles, the editor thought that it would be better not to > "confuse" the reader with the fact that HPB had a different > system with different definitions? Inconvenient material such as > this may stimulate an actively questioning reader to compare the > systems, and perhaps draw the "wrong" conclusions. This is interesting. I'd definitely like to see the Key in its entirety. If it is not a part of BCWs, I'd like to buy it now. > > It took me about two minutes to discover these discrepancies > in Codd's version of the KEY. Imagine what I might find if I put > an hour into it. A theosophical historian once concluded a > conference paper with the observation that the Theosophical > Society ought to be more straight forward about their practices > and change their motto to: "There is no religion higher than (a > carefully edited version of the) truth." This is hilarious but surely TSA has produced some good work as well. I am particularly impressed by John Algeo and his articles that I have seen. > > I would strongly recommend that you take some time to start > reading histories in order to get your sense of chronology > straight. Past statements about returning ES material to Judge > in 1921, or Blavatsky quoting from a book written eleven years > after she was dead, are obvious blunders you wouldn't make if you > took the time to read some theosophical history. Or at least, > please give it some thought--It will give you a whole new > perspective. I thought I'd double check with you on the address to which I should send a check for $ 14 to subscribe to Theosophical History; I have: Dr. James A. Santucci Dept of Religious Studies California State University Fullerton CA 92634-9480 Is this correct? Bye for now - Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 01:58:20 -0500 From: HOBB@delphi.com Subject: Correction of 2 typos on 2 recommended titles by Terry Hobbes I want to correct two typos in my previous message: (1) Chapter 1 The Birth of the Theosophical Movement, pp. 1-30 And referring to the TUP edition of the Key to Theosophy: (2) This edition also has a good 53 page INDEX. I typed "glossary" the first time but it should be "index". Sorry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 03:36:57 -0500 From: HOBB@delphi.com Subject: 2 recommended titles by Terry Hobbes Boston, MA HOBB@delphi.com To: Arvind Kumar and other interested parties I would like to suggest two books that will help you in your dialogue with Jerry H.-E.: (1) To get a chronological perspective of the history of the Theosophical Movement, I would recommend: *Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of the Theosophical Movement* by Bruce Campbell. Published 1980. 248 pp. + I believe this work is still in print and I would think Jerry H-E could supply you with a copy. If you will read the following chapters you will have a pretty good overview and sense of chronlogy: ChapteThe Birth of the Theosophical Movement, pp. 1-30 Chapter 4 Formative Years: Achievement, Controversy, Schism, pp. 75-112 Chapter 5 The Twentieth Century: Three Paths for Theosophy. pp, 113-146. Also Chapter 6, section on "Offshoots and Related Movements", pp. 147-165. I don't agree with everything Dr. Campbell says, especially on H.P.B., but keeping that in mind, the book is an excellent overview of the history as well as the teachings of Theosophy. What do other members on Theos-l think? There are other histories but they go into alot of detail and you can get bogged down in sideissues. Campbell's book gives the bird's eyeview. (2) I agree with Jerry H-E that you need a better edition of H.P.B.'s *The Key to Theosophy*. Several editions are available and I recommend the edition published by The Theosophical University Press, Pasadena, CA. This edition contains an unabridged, verbatim reprinting of the original edition of 1889 and in addition includes H.P.B.'s 60 page glossary of Theosophical and related terms that she added to the 2nd edition in 1890. This edition also has a good 53 page glossary. And this edition is available in both hardbound and paperback editions. I recommend that you purchase the hardbound edition for durability. Again I'm sure you can purchase a copy of this Theosophical University Press edition through Jerry H-E. Again, I highly recommend this edition as superior to all other editions on the market. Enough for now, Terry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 05:29:34 -0500 From: pplasto@peg.apc.org Subject: Re: Jupiter collision with comet in July thank you, John, I would very much like more info..will you email it? or do you need my address... Paddy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 06:46:08 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: AAB/HPB >> Therefore it appears that your solution (that TCF is the >> "psychological key" to the SD.) follows my third possible >> scenario--that Foster Bailey's statement is a misprint (or a >> mistake) that nobody ever bothered to change--i.e. that he >> misquoted or misunderstood H.P.B.'s prophecy to refer to THE, >> when it really referred to the SD. But until we find the text >> of this prophecy, we won't be able to clarify this. > Foster Bailey wrote the preface to TCF in 1950, after > AAB had passed on. I donot know what the 'occult status' > of FB was, and it is possible that as he was writing the > 'Introduction' to TCF', he only wanted to say a few words > about the reasons why TCF was written, without being too > concerned about the disfference between the key to SD or TSD. > You seem to have done a lot of research in this area but I > venture to say that most ordinary readers of SD or TCF are > not concerned about this distinction. May I suggest that > we take Foster's (and AAB's) statements that TCF is a > psychological key to SD at face value for now, and put this > aside as one of the questions to be resolved? I plan to > write to Lucis Trust about this question formally (and > also to enquire if the manuscripts of AAB's writing are > available for public view, and if the 'HPB papers that Mr. > Prater gave AAB' are available to the public now). Perhaps you > want to suggest some more questions before I send this > request to Lucis. In other words you are suggesting that Foster Bailey didn't know what he was talking about and he got away with it because most people reading the book are not informed enough to make a distinction between the SD and TSD. One would hope that AAB, since she wrote the book, would have made the distinction, or at least the Tibetan would have made it. But I find that she also refers to TSD rather than the SD in her Autobiography: H.P.B. said that the next interpretation of the Ageless Wisdom would be a psychological approach, and ~A Treatise on Cosmic Fire~, which I published in 1925, is the psychological key to ~The Secret Doctrine~. (214) Another revolutionary thing that the Tibetan did was when He dictated the contents of ~A Treatise on Cosmic Fire~. In this book He gave what H.P.B. prophesied He would give, the psychological key to cosmic creation. H.P.B. stated that in the 20th century a disciple would come who would give information concerning the three fires with which ~The Secret Doctrine~ deals: electric fire, solar fire and fire by friction. This prophecy was fulfilled when ~A Treatise on Cosmic Fire~ was given out to the public. (236) Since her statement was repeated twice, it is pretty clear that she meant TSD, and not the SD. But her first statement is ambiguous enough that I can accept that she also did not make a distinction between the SD and TSD, as H.P.B. had clearly done. Therefore, I'm willing to accept that by TSD, she meant the SD. Why she did not make this distinction isn't evident. If I were having a conversation with someone who claimed to have read THE, and that person did not make a distinction between TSD and the SD, I would take this as strong evidence that they did not have any real understanding of what they claimed to have read. Her second statement is also revealing because she gives some details about H.P.B.'s "prophecy:" 1. The Tibetan (DK) would give out the book. 2. The Book would give information concerning the three fires discussed in TSD. 3. The book would come out in the 20th century though a disciple. So these are the details that we can expect to find in H.P.B.'s prophecy, if it was ever made. I'm also willing to take on face value (for now) that TCF is a "psychological approach" (AAB's words) to the "Ageless Wisdom," using AAB's definition of psychology. Regarding that by "psychological key" AAB meant the "theogonic key," if you can find where AAB says they are synonymous, I will accept that this is what she meant. But I'm at a loss as to why AAB would want to discard H.P.B.'S term in favor of her own without notification or explanation. This can only create confusion. > HPB has used the term 'psychology' in the sense of the 'science > of the soul' throughout her writings (I gave many examples in > my previous message and have found several more in Isis > Unveiled). The use of the term psychology by both HPB and AAB > is to mean the same thing. I'm becoming a bit weary of reading this same argument over and over again. I will repeat for the fourth time that I never disagreed with you in the first place on this. H.P.B. used the term psychology in the classical meaning, and sometimes in the modern meaning. AAB appears to have also used the term psychology in the classical meaning. If this is not yet clear, please go back and reread my last three communications on this subject, and advise me as to what I have not made clear, or what I had written that convinces you that we disagree on this. > On the other hand, I have not seen > any place (other than the one cited by you) in HPB's writings > where she has used the term 'theogonic'. I have not come > across 'theogonic' in AAB's writing so far. It is possible > that HPB may have used 'theogonic' instead of 'psychological' > as she was always concerned about the use of the term > psychology by the materialists to mean something totally > different from what she meant to convey. AAB did not have > that problem as she has clearly defined psychology to begin > with and she (or the Tibetan) was aware of the stupedous amount > of work that they were going to produce later, in the form of > the two volumes of 'A Treatise on the Seven Rays' that deal > with Esoteric Psychology. H.P.B. used definite words to mean definite things--and she clearly defined them. When she wrote "theogonic key" she meant "theogonic key." When she wrote "psychology" she meant "psychology." In ~Isis Unveiled ~, as I recall, the word psychology was used in context with magic and phenomena, not to cosmology. In TSD, she appears to have maintained this usage. The "Theogonic Key" on the other hand, concerned the "god's" relation to humanity as found in Religion and Mythology. Following this Logic, I suppose one could argue that AAB took HPB's term (psychology) and redefined it into a cosmological context, and ignored the term "Theogonic" used by H.P.B. The table of translation would look something like this: HPB AAB Psychology (human context) = Psychology (human context) Theogonic (cosmo. context) = Psychology (cosmological context) > Remember that all references to the 'psychological key' that we > have seen so far have come from either the autobiography or > Foster Bailey's introduction to TCF, both of which were > written after 1945, by which time AAB had finished writing her > major works dealing with psychology. I don't follow your point here. > That may be the case, but this should be looked at on a case by > case basis and not blindly. If you give me some examples of > Besant/Leadbeater terms that AAB has employed (and HPB did > not), I can dig out the references where the term may be > defined in AAB books, and we can compare her meaning with that > of HPB and others for similar terms. Let's start with "etheric double." I will tell you right off however, it is not synonymous with H.P.B.'s "Astral body" or "Linga Sarira." > Wow, I am amazed at what you do as part of a Master's program > in English. Are you evaluated on your command of the language > or the ability to decipher these difficult to read materials > (are they all written in English??) ? BTW, an elder brother of > mine and an elder sister, and a brother-in-law of mine back > home in India have each done a Master's in English as well, and > all three of them have been teaching college level English for > some time. I did not realize how close this subject is to > philosophy! An English Major today needs to be knowledgeable in philosophy, psychology, linguistics, semiotics, and history. Twenty years ago it was easier. Everything is in English, but I read some French, and my Master's thesis will probably involve some translation from French to English. > I was curious about the cover of Parucker's ES instructions; > it seems to have letters that belong to some language. I could > recognize some of them as belonging to Sanskrit/Hindi but > others escaped any recognition. I don't know. Some look like Hebrew letters. > What is a good book to get a perspective on theosophical > history? Am I correct in assuming that there is another > volume of HPB Collected Writings coming that will contain > her letters? Every Society has their own version of the history. You need to read and compare them all. However, in your case, I really think you need to read the Leadbeater biography. It was written by an outsider, with no political axe to grind for or against CWL. It was a Doctoral thesis, so it had to pass a review committee that the book's facts are all fully documented, and that he isn't working on speculations or gossip. Though it is organized around Leadbeater, it will give you a good view of the Society that AAB knew, and what she was dealing with. It pretty closely covers the Society's history from 1882-1934, and give background for the 1875-1882 period. Considering your area of interest, this is the most relevant history. There is another book that covers Krishnamurti for around this time. You might get into that one too, as this is also very relevant. H.P.B.'s letters will be published in three volumes (last I heard), but might be another couple of years yet. But her letters to Sinnett are available now. > Also, is the original Key to Theosophy included in one of > these volumes of CWs? No. Though this was Boris' original plan, Wheaton has not wanted to do this. Perhaps after the letters are published, things might change. > Below Paul is mentioning that the Theosophical movement looks > at HPB through Sinnett's eyes. What does it mean? This is > directly opposed to my impression that most mainline > theosophists have greater regard for HPB than for Sinnett. > Does this have anything to do with the Mahatma Letters to > Sinnett? At least publicly (in SD) HPB has lavishly praised > Sinnett and referred to Esoteric Buddhism rather frequently as > a genuine theosophical work. >> One thing I hope the new volume of letters will do is liberate >> the Theosophical movement from seeing HPB through Sinnett's >> eyes. Since the two of them ended up so mutually hostile, one >> cannot help wondering just how honest she would have been with >> him-- as compared to, say, Hartmann-- on important elements in >> her life. I have mentioned here before that the version of >> Master M. told to Sinnett ended up being orthodox Theosophical >> dogma despite conflicting with at least three other versions-- >> mutually contradictory themselves. Why would Sinnett be the >> one she would choose to tell the real truth? Paul is meaning some things that only he can best go into, and I'm sure that he will. But I want to put my two cents worth in anyway, because I'm looking at it from a slightly different (but not conflicting) perspective: Sinnett believed that Blavatsky was under the influence of Black Magicians. When the Masters broke off correspondence with him, he found a medium, who he believed was channeling the Masters for him. The "Masters" channeled by this woman confirmed every negative suspicion Sinnet had about H.P.B. Leadbeater was a close friend of Sinnett and used many of his teachings, and with Besant, conveyed in their writings, a subtlety condescending attitude about Blavatsky. Paul is making a different point, that concerns Master M, but I'm just taking the opportunity to answer your question in a different way. >> Paul says that this "disfiguring" isn't being done anymore. I >> don't know. The last instance of this being done that came to >> my attention was around 1989, but I haven't been watching >> lately. > And what was the book or topic in 1989 that was 'disfigured'? I had in mind a reprint of a message to the American Convention written by HPB. It speaks in glowing terms about the work Judge did for the American Section and that it would not exist without him etc. It was reprinted in THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST around 1989. But in this reprint, all references to Judge were deleted. > This is interesting. I'd definitely like to see the Key in > its entirety. If it is not a part of BCWs, I'd like to buy it > now. Cloth or paper? > I thought I'd double check with you on the address to which I > should send a check for $ 14 to subscribe to Theosophical > History; > I have: > Dr. James A. Santucci > Dept of Religious Studies > California State University > Fullerton CA 92634-9480 > Is this correct? Yes. Best to you Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:55:15 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Besant, Blavatsky and History Dear Arvind, Another word on Sinnett. What I mean is that HPB's letters to him, especially those written as he prepared to write Incidents in the Life of Mme. Blavatsky, are the most detailed autobiographical information we have from HPB and present a fairly coherent accounting of her past life including relations with Masters. Therefore they have been the backbone of every orthodox bio since they were published , as much relied on by Cranston today as by Fuller or Murphet. The BIG problem with this development is that HPB's letters to Sinnett are a CYA carefully edited version of the truth in which anything offensive to English Victorian sensibilities is glossed over. Thus no love life, no associations with radicals, no nitty gritty on Morya-- all of which appears abundantly elsewhere in printed sources. But the conflicting info is scattered in a bunch of sources whereas the self-censored version to Sinnett comes packaged neatly in a single book. Scholarly laziness is as much to blame as sectarian censorship for the distorted and "sanctified" HPB Theosophists now believe in. I suspect the new publication of more letters will show us HPB as she presented herself to dozens of people, most of whom she liked and trusted more than she did Sinnett. What Jerry doesn't mention about Sinnett and Leadbeater is that CWL served as APS's medium to KH before "Mary" and while HPB was right there in Europe. In other words, while HPB was alive and kicking, Leadbeater was conspiring to convince Sinnett that he, and not HPB, was the true channel to KH. Strangely, there is no evidence I know of that HPB ever found this out since "KH" through Leadbeater and "Mary" told Sinnett never to tell. Sinnett's autobiography, available through THF, tells all. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 14:09:56 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: Re: AAB/HPB Jerry H-E, > In other words you are suggesting that Foster Bailey didn't > know what he was talking about and he got away with it because > most people reading the book are not informed enough to make a > distinction between the SD and TSD. No I am not suggesting this. I am suggesting that the distinction between SD and TSD appears to be a 'big deal' for you, but it is not such a big deal for others. If Foster was alive today, you could have gotten an answer to your very specific question. Perhaps he would have shown you some reference or papers where HPB wrote this. I donot know the answer to your question and have previously offered to include it in a formal request to Lucis. > One would hope that AAB, > since she wrote the book, would have made the distinction, or at > least the Tibetan would have made it. But I find that she also > refers to TSD rather than the SD in her Autobiography: > > H.P.B. said that the next interpretation of the Ageless > Wisdom would be a psychological approach, and ~A Treatise on > Cosmic Fire~, which I published in 1925, is the > psychological key to ~The Secret Doctrine~. (214) > > Another revolutionary thing that the Tibetan did was when He > dictated the contents of ~A Treatise on Cosmic Fire~. In > this book He gave what H.P.B. prophesied He would give, the > psychological key to cosmic creation. H.P.B. stated that in > the 20th century a disciple would come who would give > information concerning the three fires with which ~The > Secret Doctrine~ deals: electric fire, solar fire and fire > by friction. This prophecy was fulfilled when ~A Treatise > on Cosmic Fire~ was given out to the public. (236) > > Since her statement was repeated twice, it is pretty clear > that she meant TSD, and not the SD. But her first statement is > ambiguous enough that I can accept that she also did not make a > distinction between the SD and TSD, as H.P.B. had clearly done. > Therefore, I'm willing to accept that by TSD, she meant the SD. > Why she did not make this distinction isn't evident. If I were > having a conversation with someone who claimed to have read THE, > and that person did not make a distinction between TSD and the > SD, I would take this as strong evidence that they did not have > any real understanding of what they claimed to have read. > > Her second statement is also revealing because she gives > some details about H.P.B.'s "prophecy:" > > 1. The Tibetan (DK) would give out the book. > 2. The Book would give information concerning the three > fires discussed in TSD. > 3. The book would come out in the 20th century though a > disciple. > > So these are the details that we can expect to find in > H.P.B.'s prophecy, if it was ever made. > > I'm also willing to take on face value (for now) that TCF is > a "psychological approach" (AAB's words) to the "Ageless Wisdom," > using AAB's definition of psychology. Regarding that by > "psychological key" AAB meant the "theogonic key," if you can > find where AAB says they are synonymous, I will accept that this > is what she meant. But I'm at a loss as to why AAB would want to > discard H.P.B.'S term in favor of her own without notification or > explanation. This can only create confusion. I already stated that I have never come across the word 'theogonic' in my reading of AAB material, but I will look up the index to AAB writings and see if there is any reference to it, and if there is one, I'll let you know. Yes, it is confusing that different authors have used different words to refer to the same thing; in general I'd grant anyone the right to use any words they use provided they explain somewhere what they mean by them. > I'm becoming a bit weary of reading this same argument over > and over again. I will repeat for the fourth time that I never > disagreed with you in the first place on this. H.P.B. used the > term psychology in the classical meaning, and sometimes in the > modern meaning. AAB appears to have also used the term > psychology in the classical meaning. If this is not yet clear, > please go back and reread my last three communications on this > subject, and advise me as to what I have not made clear, or what > I had written that convinces you that we disagree on this. One of the drawbacks of this medium (as compared to face-to-face communication) is that many times I have to assume where the problems may lie when we are not in agreement on something. Redundancies like this are likely to continue to occur but hopefully will decline over time as we understand each other better and better. > H.P.B. used definite words to mean definite things--and she > clearly defined them. When she wrote "theogonic key" she meant > "theogonic key." When she wrote "psychology" she meant > "psychology." In ~Isis Unveiled ~, as I recall, the word > psychology was used in context with magic and phenomena, not to > cosmology. In TSD, she appears to have maintained this usage. > The "Theogonic Key" on the other hand, concerned the "god's" > relation to humanity as found in Religion and Mythology. > Following this Logic, I suppose one could argue that AAB took > HPB's term (psychology) and redefined it into a cosmological > context, and ignored the term "Theogonic" used by H.P.B. The > table of translation would look something like this: > > HPB AAB > > Psychology (human context) = Psychology (human context) > > Theogonic (cosmo. context) = Psychology (cosmological context) Actually, AAB in TCF has attempted to outline the evolution of consciousness ('soul aspect') of a human being into a Planetary Logos, and that of a Planetary Logos into a Solar Logos,etc. Psychology in the human context is in fact the same as psychology in the cosmological context. This is the true basis of brotherhood, everything is interrelated! There is but ONE SOUL!! See for example, p. 233 of TCF "The manifesting Units of Consciousness". > > Remember that all references to the 'psychological key' that we > > have seen so far have come from either the autobiography or > > Foster Bailey's introduction to TCF, both of which were > > written after 1945, by which time AAB had finished writing her > > major works dealing with psychology. > > I don't follow your point here. I was making the point that by 1945 AAB's books had treated enough of psychology to enable AAB and FB to use the 'true psychology' as a commonplace term, without referring to 'theogony' or having to put a footnote or explanation (as HPB has done at several places) to indicate that by psychology, 'the science of the soul' was meant and not the materilistic definition of it. > Let's start with "etheric double." I will tell you right > off however, it is not synonymous with H.P.B.'s "Astral body" or > "Linga Sarira." Yes, we have uncovered this problem about the relationships between various bodies; I need to get back to that message but perhaps you can tell me about the two bodies that are missing from that reference I had quoted from the Light of the Soul. I know one of them is the Physical Body (which is not a 'principle' according to both HPB and AAB). > Every Society has their own version of the history. You > need to read and compare them all. However, in your case, I > really think you need to read the Leadbeater biography. It was > written by an outsider, with no political axe to grind for or > against CWL. It was a Doctoral thesis, so it had to pass a > review committee that the book's facts are all fully documented, > and that he isn't working on speculations or gossip. Though it > is organized around Leadbeater, it will give you a good view of > the Society that AAB knew, and what she was dealing with. It > pretty closely covers the Society's history from 1882-1934, and > give background for the 1875-1882 period. Considering your area > of interest, this is the most relevant history. There is another > book that covers Krishnamurti for around this time. You might > get into that one too, as this is also very relevant. > > H.P.B.'s letters will be published in three volumes (last I > heard), but might be another couple of years yet. But her > letters to Sinnett are available now. > OK, let me have the dissertation on Leadbeater (is this the same as 'The Elder Brother'?) for now. > > This is interesting. I'd definitely like to see the Key in > > its entirety. If it is not a part of BCWs, I'd like to buy it > > now. > > Cloth or paper? Cloth, and you can bill me for any difference that I may owe you. BTW, there is a friend of mine at AT&T Bell Labs who is also interested in K's biography; I'll ask him to send you an e-mail if he wants a copy of that book. > > I thought I'd double check with you on the address to which I > > should send a check for $ 14 to subscribe to Theosophical > > History; > > I have: > > > Dr. James A. Santucci > > Dept of Religious Studies > > California State University > > Fullerton CA 92634-9480 > > > Is this correct? > > Yes. I am sending $26 for a 2 year subscription. Do they actually teach theosophy or offer courses in it at USC or CSU? Fraternally, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 12:30:03 -0800 (PST) From: eldon (Eldon B. Tucker) Cc: eldon (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: This is by Brenda Tucker. I hope that the following references from THE SECRET DOCTRINE can give us more freedom in expressing the seven principles and even in using the term "astral body" without any objection. H.P.B. makes two important points in favor of other systems of classification. 1) Don't limit theosophy to Buddhism. 2) The esoteric doctrine is "a thread doctrine" which reconciles the different systems and even "checks" the findings of science which are corroborated when found in ancient records. Here's the quote on the first point. THE SECRET DOCTRINE Vol I p. xvi. "Old truisms are often the wisest. The human mind can hardly remain entirely free from bias, and decisive opinions are often formed before a thorough examination of a subject from all its aspects has been made. This is said with reference to the prevailing double mistake (a) of limiting Theosophy to Buddhism: and (b) of confounding the tenets of the religious philosophy preached by Gautama, the Buddha, with the doctrines broadly outlined in Esoteric Buddhism. " Here's the quote for the second point. On p. 610 Vol I: "Some years ago we remarked that "the Esoteric Doctrine may well be called the 'thread-doctrine,' since, like Sutratman, in the Vedanta philosophy, it passes through and strings together all the ancient philosophical religious systems, and reconciles and explains them all." We say now it does more. It not only reconciles the various and apparently conflicting systems, but it checks the discoveries of modern exact science, and shows some of them to be necessarily correct, since they are found corroborated in the ancient records. All this will, no doubt, be regarded as terribly impertinent and disrespectful, a veritable crime of lese-science; nevertheless, it is a fact. For your reference, three classifications of Indian Systems are given on p. 157 of Vol I. Classification in ESOTERIC BUDDHISM: 1. Sthula-Sarira 2. Prana 3. The vehicle of Prana 4. Kama-Rupa 5. Mind a)volitions and feelings, etc. b) Vijnana 6. Spiritual Soul. 7. Atman Classification in Vedanta: Annamaya kosa - equivalent to number 1 above Pranamaya kosa - includes numbers 2 and 3. Manomaya kosa - includes numbers 4 and 5a from the first list. Vijnanamaya kosa - includes 5b only from the first list. Anandamaya kosa - equivalent to number 6 Atman - equivalent to number 7 Classification in Taraka Raja-Yoga Sthulopadhi - numbers 1, 2, and 3 from top list. Sukshmopadhi - equivalent to number 5 (there appears to be no Raja Yoga equivalent to number 4) Karanopadhi - equivalent to number 6 Atman - the same in all three systems "From the foregoing table it will be seen that the third principle in the Buddhist classification is not separately mentioned in the Vedantic division, as it is merely the vehicle of Prana. It will also be seen that the Fourth principle is included in the third Kosa (Sheath), as the same principle is but the vehicle of will-power, which is but an energy of the mind. It must also be noticed that the Vijnanamaya Kosa is considered to be distinct from the Manomaya Kosa, as a division is made after death between the lower part of the mind, as it were, which has a closer affinity with the fourth principle than with the sixth; and its higher part, which attaches itself to the latter, and which is, in fact, the basis for the higher spiritual individuality of man. We may also here point out to our readers that the classification mentioned in the last column is, for all practical purposes, connected with Raja Yoga, the best and simplest. Though there are seven principles in man, there are but three distinct Upadhis (bases), in each of which his Atma may work independently of the rest. These three Upadhis can be separated by an Adept without killing himself. He cannot separate the seven principles from each other without destroying his constitution." This table and two paragraphs are from an article appearing in THE THEOSOPHIST, Vol V, June, 1884, p. 225. Cf. Five Years of Theosophy, pp. 185-6. H.P.B. begins here: "The student will now be better prepared to see that between the three Upadhis of the Raja Yoga and its Atma, and our three Upadhis, Atma, and the additional three divisions, there is in reality but very little difference. Moreover, as every adept in cis-Himalayan or trans-Himalayan India, of the Patanjali, the Aryasanga or the Mahayana schools, has to become a Raja Yogi, he must, therefore, accept the Taraka Raja classification in principle and theory whatever classification he resorts to for practical and occult purposes. Thus, it matters very little whether one speaks of the three Upadhis with their three aspects and Atma, the eternal and immortal synthesis, or calls them the "seven principles."" There are other places in THE SECRET DOCTRINE where she speaks comparing the Vedanta and Vedanta terms may have become the terms in vogue for one reason or another: "It is, in its secondary stage, the Svbhvat of the Buddhist philosopher, the eternal cause and effect, omnipresent yet abstract, the self-existent plastic Essence and the root of all things, viewed in the same dual light as the Vedantin views his Parabrahm and Mulaprakriti, the one under two aspects." (p.46, Vol I) "If, in the Vedanta and Nyaya, nimitta is the efficient cause, as contrasted with upad na, the material cause, (and in the Sankhya, pradh na implies the functions of both); in the Esoteric philosophy, which reconciles all these systems, and the nearest exponent of which is the Vedanta as expounded by the Advaita Vedantists, none but the upad na can be speculated upon; that which is in the minds of the Vaishnavas (the Vasishta-dvaita) as the ideal in contradistinction to the real or Parabrahm and Isvara can find no room in published speculations, since that ideal even is a misnomer, when applied to that of which no human reason, even that of an adept, can conceive." (p. 55-6 Vol I) Now I see no reason why we have to strictly adhere to any one system. If you use one Buddhist term, this doesn't mean that the next time you have to use a Buddhist term. In keeping with the spirit of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, these different systems should be studied independently and in comparison for their separate benefits to be best applied to the student's purpose. I suggest that by studying the races, we may be able to get some idea of what was needed by souls coming into incarnation at different times in this Fourth Round. It would be a shame to not allow the fullness that H.P.B. is presenting in this work to be present also in our studies. If one author is permitted to use the term astral body as equivalent to the Manomaya kosa in the Vedanta Classification System, this can be done with the full knowledge that he has studied material independently and arrived at certain conclusions through his or her own thinking process. The students weren't just asked to study and elaborate H.P.B. They were asked to compare the religions, philosophies and sciences. If this has been accomplished and a satisfactory learning experience has occurred in harmony with the objects of the society, there is cause to celebrate, for each of us being allowed the freedom of expression, side by side with other exoteric form expression, because at heart we have an esoteric, or inward path, which negates (absorbs) all outward form in the end leaving only the atman as the true self. (Vol I, p. 570-1) "The monad a truly "indivisible thing," as defined by Good, who did not give it the sense we now do is here rendered as the Atman in conjunction with Buddhi and the higher Manas. This trinity is one and eternal, the latter being absorbed in the former at the termination of all conditioned and illusive life. The monad, then, can be traced through the course of its pilgrimage and its changes of transitory vehicles only from the incipient stage of the manifested Universe. In Pralaya, or the intermediate period between two manvantaras, it loses its name, as it loses it when the, real ONE self of man merges into Brahman in cases of high Samadhi (the Turiya state) or final Nirvana; "when the disciple" in the words of Samkara, "having attained that primeval consciousness, absolute bliss, of which the nature is truth, which is without form and action, abandons this illusive body that has been assumed by the atman just as an actor (abandons) the dress (put on)." For Buddhi (the Anandamaya sheath) is but a mirror which reflects absolute bliss; and, moreover, that reflection itself is yet not free from ignorance, and is not the Supreme Spirit, being subject to conditions, being a spiritual modification of Prakriti, and an effect; Atman alone is the one real and eternal substratum of all the essence and absolute knowledge the Kshetrajna. It is called in the Esoteric philosophy "the One Witness," and, while it rests in Devachan, is referred to as "the Three Witnesses to Karma."" (I wonder who Good is. There's a nice footnote here about Spirit, Water and Blood, where the sheaths are water and blood, or life.) For further research, on p.242-5 Vol I, the term astral body is found to mean one thing in the Kabala and something else in esoteric jargon. Separately, she compares the occult terms of a kabalist, Eliphas Levi, with those used by Occultists. The seven numbered list under that which the occultists use contain these familiar terms: Manas, Buddhi, Atman, 4. The Soul, 5. Earth, Kama-loka and Devachan as dwellings for the soul 6. is agreed upon by the two sides: "The image (man) is a sphinx that offers the riddle of birth." and 7. "The astral through Kama (desire) is ever drawing Manas down into the sphere of material passions... (etc.)" In these pages H.P.B. does use the term in a comparative manner and not wholly in agreement with the Kabala and Eliphas Levi. This is true even to the point that the Kabala says "Astral Body or Linga-Sarira", with numbered items on the facing page describing this kabalistic method and H.P.B., speaking for the Theosophists says "Too uselessly apocalyptic" "astral reflects the good as well as the bad man" in reference to one of these points and correct to the other. See for yourself, because it is somewhat misleading in its presentation here. P.S. Maybe this should have been in the last communication: "In a few words: They CONTAIN the beginning and the end of all human knowledge, but they have now ceased to REVEAL it, since the day of Buddha. If it were otherwise, the Upanishads (STILL, b.tucker) could not be called esoteric, since they are now openly attached to the Sacred Brahmnical books, which have, in our present age, become accessible even to the Mlechchhas (out-castes) and the European Orientalists." (p. 270 Vol I THE SECRET DOCTRINE) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:50:48 -0800 (PST) From: eldon (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: note from Emmett Small re Purucker This message is by W. Emmett Small, in response to the comments of mine and of Jerry Hejka-Ekins regarding the writings of G. de Purucker. The material was entered by me from two type-written pages that I received, and has been reformatted for the ascii style of "theos-l". -- Eldon B. Tucker (eldon@netcom.com) ---- Following are some thoughts that I've just dashed off, as other things are pressing. My observations come from personal experience. I knew GdeP and worked under his auspices directly for 13 years. First of all, I can well understand both Jerry's and Eldon's stand in the whole matter. In certain ways they are both right--Jerry from the academic viewpoint, Eldon from his knowledge of Theosophy and especially of the work of GdeP. (Of course in WRITING a book and quoting other authors one should give correct references.In a college thesis footnotes are almost more important than text!) But in SPEAKING, as Jerry says, except in rare instances, it would greatly weaken the presentation. The SPEAKING voice is far more important to the assembled students than an instructor merely READING what he has to present on the subject. And, correctly, most of GdeP's book are the PRINTING of the SPOKEN word, and rarely are there given footnoted references for any quote he may make or refer to. In other words when reading it today do so with the spoken voice in mind. Now a bit of history, as I was at Point Loma at the time. GdeP gave a series of lectures in the Temple to public audiences in 1927 and 1928. (These were later published in THE THEOSOPHICAL PATH, but not until 1930.) The title of these lectures was THEOSOPHY, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS, PHILOSOPHIES, AND SCIENCES, about 40 of them given on a Sunday afternoon at 3 o'clock. They were given over radio KFSD San Diego from Point Loma. These were followed by a series (later published in BOOK form) titled THEOSOPHY AND MODERN SCIENCE, 29 lectures in all, but six of them under the title of THEOSOPHY AND MODERN HYPNOTISM (Those six lectures being delivered during the spring of 1927, the other 23 in June to December 1927. They were, as said, published in book form, some 614 pages--and also given over KFSD radio.) Of them, GdeP in the book says, > [The lectures] are here published VERBATIM from stenographic > record when delivered, but with the lecturer's final review and > corrections. They were also published in THE THEOSOPHICAL PATH, > Point Loma, California, during 1928- 1929. The quotes from scientists of the time and references for them are just about zero. There is one on page 506 which refers to an article by Professor G.T.W. Patrick, University of Iowa in THE SCIENTIFIC MONTHLY, July 1926, > significant of the marvelous changes in scientific views > regarding evolution and their truly outstanding approach to what > we Theosophists teach. (and GdeP quotes a whole page of what Patrick writes). In fact, that ended the series of THEOSOPHY AND MODERN SCIENCE. Now when we come to THE ESOTERIC TRADITION we have a different story, and Eldon is quite right about it. This was written, as many professorial academic books have been and still are today, from Notes and lectures given before, but with the help of a secretary to whom the professor can dictate material to be added, to make changes in the early notes, etc. GdeP at the time was in England, at Oakley House, in 1932. Elsie Benjamin was his private secretary, but for the literary work needed for THE ESOTERIC TRADITION, he had Elsie's sister Helen Savage (later Helen Todd). GdeP was in great demand during those months, dashing around lecturing to lodges in England, Wales, and Holland mainly; so Helen, who did not usually accompany him on these, was able to concentrate on the editing end of things, and GdeP wanted the books out in a hurry (two volumes). Turn the pages and note the over 450 FOOTNOTES with references given. Now read GdeP's "Introduction", and you get the background: there is no egotistic boasting; it is left to the reader to come to his own conclusions: > ... all proof lies ultimately in the man himself; the ancients > knew that judgement and cognition of truth lie within him and not > without; and for these reasons they were more largely > introspective than we are, who pride ourselves upon, yes, > actually boast of, the modern idea that extrospection, or looking > without, is the sole highway to truth. The attaining of truth by > the individual runs in both directions, in the sense that while > we should cultivate the faculty of looking outward in order to > discern the facts of Nature, we can only understand these facts > by using the power of understanding, of discrimination, of > judgement, of intellectual analysis; and that power of > understanding and comprehension is not outside of but within us, > as seems obvious enough. (page 12). And again: > THE SECRET DOCTRINE alone contains an almost untouched mine of > esoteric wisdom and teaching, untouched because its most devoted > students apparently have done little more than scratch the > surface of this genuine treasury of the Ancient Wisdom-Teaching > ... (page 26) > The purpose of this present book is to aid in the research for a > greater truth for men; and however small this contribution may be > to that really sublime objective, the reader is asked to remember > the will while he is studying the deed. See also page viii, where GdeP writes: > What is good in them will endure; if there is anything that is > not good, let it perish and perish rapidly. Isn't that the RIGHT and HIGHER attitude! And finally, the dedication at the beginning of Volume I reads: > TO THOSE WHO HAVE BESTOWED THE PRICELESS, > WHO HAVE GIVEN IMMEASURABLY, > AND TO THEIR SUBLIME CAUSE, > THESE VOLUMES ARE OFFERED WITH MEASURELESS > REVERENCE AND DEVOTION. -- W. Emmett Small, Point Loma, California February 1, 1994 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 00:52:11 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: AAB/HPB Arvind >> In other words you are suggesting that Foster Bailey didn't >> know what he was talking about and he got away with it because >> most people reading the book are not informed enough to make a >> distinction between the SD and TSD. > No I am not suggesting this. I am suggesting that the > distinction between SD and TSD appears to be a 'big deal' for > you, but it is not such a big deal for others. If Foster was > alive today, you could have gotten an answer to your very > specific question. Perhaps he would have shown you some > reference or papers where HPB wrote this. I donot know the > answer to your question and have previously offered to include > it in a formal request to Lucis. There is a Jewish joke once told by Sigmund Freud demonstrating that when the relation of the signifier (word) is deprived of its relationship to the signified (what the word refers to), the dialogue comes to a close: "Yes, why are you lying to me?" one character shouts breathlessly. "Yes, why do you lie to me saying you're going to Cracow so I should believe you're going to Lemberg, when in reality you are going to Cracow?" So I would ask: Why does Foster Bailey lie to me referring to TSD, so I should believe he is referring to the SD, when in reality he is referring to TSD? Perhaps FB would have shown me some "reference or papers where HPB wrote this" but we don't know if he would have, and we don't know if such "reference or papers" exists. We can however check his statement against what is available in print, and here we find him in contradiction to what evidence we have. Yes, it is a big deal to me when someone refers to the title of a book when the subject matter is meant, or visa versa, because it makes it difficult for me to decode what they are talking about, and also leave me to wonder whether they know what they are talking about. It was a big enough deal for HPB that she made the distinction in her introductory chapter, and continued to make that distinction all through TSD. For those who never read TSD, it would not be a big deal--it would probably be meaningless. It appears that students in the AS are so used to this kind of slippage between the word and its meaning that these kind of statements go un-noticed. > I already stated that I have never come across the word > 'theogonic' in my reading of AAB material, but I will look up the > index to AAB writings and see if there is any reference to it, > and if there is one, I'll let you know. Yes, it is confusing > that different authors have used different words to refer to > the same thing; in general I'd grant anyone the right to use > any words they use provided they explain somewhere what they > mean by them. Agreed. > Psychology in the human context is in fact the same > as psychology in the cosmological context. This is the true > basis of brotherhood, everything is interrelated! There is but > ONE SOUL!! See for example, p. 233 of TCF "The manifesting > Units of Consciousness". This as apparently being so in AAB's teachings, considering her dual meaning of the word "psychology." In HPB's teachings, to say that "psychology in the human context is in fact the same as psychology in the cosmological context" would be a nonsense statement, because she doesn't use the word "psychology" in a cosmological context. >>> Remember that all references to the 'psychological key' that >>> we have seen so far have come from either the autobiography >>> or Foster Bailey's introduction to TCF, both of which were >>> written after 1945, by which time AAB had finished writing >>> her major works dealing with psychology. >> I don't follow your point here. > I was making the point that by 1945 AAB's books had treated > enough of psychology to enable AAB and FB to use the 'true > psychology' as a commonplace term, without referring to > 'theogony' or having to put a footnote or explanation (as HPB > has done at several places) to indicate that by psychology, > 'the science of the soul' was meant and not the materialistic > definition of it. Since the "materialistic definition" is not in question here, but the substitution of the word "psychological" for "theogonic", I still don't follow your point. > Yes, we have uncovered this problem about the relationships > betwe From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 18:51:11 -0500 From: HOBB@delphi.com Subject: CW Leadbeater and "Mary" by Terry Hobbes In a message from Paul Johnson on Theos-L today, Paul writes: ". . . CWL served as APS's medium to KH before "Mary". . . ." I don't think this is true. In *The Autobiography of Alfred Percy Sinnett*, p. 33, APS says he met "Mary" in April 1886 and started using her as the "channel" of communication with K.H. CWL was in India from Oct 1884 till Dec. 1889. Sinnett was receiving communications from "KH" through Mary starting in 1886. I know of no evidence showing that Leadbeater was passing communications from K.H. to Sinnett before his return to London in late 1889. Also see Sinnett's *The Early Days of Theosophy*, top of p. 95. Paul, are you saying that CWL served as a channel of communication between Sinnett and "KH" *before* APS met "Mary" in April, 1886? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 5 Feb 1994 01:32:10 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: AAB/HPB Arvind >> So I would ask: Why does Foster Bailey lie to me >> referring to TSD, so I should believe he is referring to the >> SD, when in reality he is referring to TSD? Perhaps FB would >> have shown me some "reference or papers where HPB wrote this" >> but we don't know if he would have, and we don't know if such >> "reference or papers" exists. We can however check his >> statement against what is available in print, and here we find >> him in contradiction to what evidence we have. > If you want to conclude that FB is lying, that is upto you. > In fact there is nothing that I can do that will change your > mind about anything, howsoever erroneous it may be. Only > you can change your mind in the light of your experience or > intuition. The way I look at what Foster has written, he > is expressing his views about TCF and 'paraphrasing' what he > knows about the background to the writing of TCF. Many times > during the writing of these messages, you ask me, 'where did > I read this or that', and I have a hard time remembering where > I read that material. I have been unable to give you > references because when I was reading the original material, > I was only interested in the material. and not the page number > or the title of the chapter. My opinion is that Foster Bailey > wrote this as part of the 'introduction' to TCF in 1950, > perhaps thirty years or more after he had read Blavatsky's > papers. He is not quoting from one of HPB's writings but > rather paraphrasing what he learnt while reading HPB's > papers (just like what I do when I am writing a message to you > about what I learn from AAB or HPB or other writings). > You can say that perhaps FB has not been precise in what he > has stated as far as whether TCF is the key to SD or TSD, but > it is ludicrous on your part to accuse him of lying to you. Wow! Obviously, my message to you concerning FB was entirely mis-understood. What distresses me the most is that I'm not sure why. May I ask if English is your second language? If so, this may explain a lot. I know from personal experience that when reading in French, I often completely miss the point because of not being familiar with a word, or not familiar with a particular meaning of a word in a certain context. Sometimes I will miss the point of a whole article because of unfamiliarity with an underlying meaning, that would have been obvious if I had grown up in the French culture. In the case of the FB joke, it had to have been read in context with the quotation and explanation of Freud's joke in order to have been understood. Since you had not reproduced this critical part of the message when answering it, I might surmise that you didn't understand the relationship between the two parts of the message. Below, I will reproduce the two parts, and try to explain it to you. But please understand, that the joke isn't funny once it is explained--because it loses in the translation. But believe me, it is a very old classical joke that has been around for a century and it is still funny: > There is a Jewish joke once told by Sigmund Freud > demonstrating that when the relation of the signifier (word) is > deprived of its relationship to the signified (what the word > refers to), the dialogue comes to a close: > "Yes, why are you lying to me?" one character shouts > breathlessly. "Yes, why do you lie to me saying you're > going to Cracow so I should believe you're going to > Lemberg, when in reality you are going to Cracow?" > So I would ask: Why does Foster Bailey lie to me referring > to TSD, so I should believe he is referring to the SD, when in > reality he is referring to TSD? Perhaps FB would have shown > me some "reference or papers where HPB wrote this" but we > don't know if he would have, and we don't know if such > "reference or papers" exists. We can however check his > statement against what is available in print, and here we find > him in contradiction to what evidence we have. Now the humor of this joke has nothing to do with lying, nor does my rephrasing of the joke to FB have anything to do with lying. The idea has to do with the using of one word to mean another. For instance, about thirty years ago it was popular among people of my generation in Los Angeles to name their dogs "cat" and their cats "dog." This is another variation of the same humor, and believe it or not, we thought it was funny. We were not lying by naming a dog "cat." By doing so, we were pointing to the problem that we are in a sense prisoners of language. When we start breaking the rules of language by calling a dog "cat," we create confusion. If I were to call my dog to me by saying: "here kitty kitty kitty," anyone hearing me would expect a cat to come running. When they see a dog running to me instead, they would become confused. So to explain the joke (which I realize will no longer make it funny): The exasperated man who is shouting "breathlessly" understands by the city of Cracow to mean the city of Lemberg, but the other man understands Cracow to mean Cracow and Lemberg to mean Lemberg. So the first man is exasperated when the second announces he is going to Lemberg, because the first understands that to mean Cracow. But he also knows in fact that the second man is going to Cracow, which the first man understands to be Lemberg. So in the same manner, I was making the same joke. What FB understands to the TSD is what I understand to be the SD etc. The point of my making the joke was to point out that when we write "cat" when we really mean "dog," the reader will understand "cat" and often not be able to guess that "dog" was really meant. Now if you will translate "dog" and "cat" to "TSD" and "the SD" you will get my point. I hope this clarifies things. I also understand why you are not able to give references, and we talked about this early in this exchange, where I had recommended that you try to get in the habit of taking notes so that you will be able to find things again. If I recall, you had replied favorably to this suggestion and had started do so. > Now, regarding what is available in print. I ask you, have > you made an effort to search EVERYTHING that HPB has written? > Exhaustively?? I donot believe that anybody in his right > mind can make that statement! If you make that statement, it > will be truly imprecise (much more so than FB may be guilty > of wrt TSD). Do you remember that I had asked you whether you > were aware of HPB's desire to rename ES as AS, as a follow-up > to another statement from AAB's biography? You did not, at > least you had not seen anything in print to that effect, right? > I have news for you: read BCW XI p. 342 and look for the > following letter from HPB to HSO: "...the term "Esoteric" and > "Esotericism" having been so desecrated ... [that] our Esoteric > Section had better drop its name. The Council in England has > decided to call it 'Arcane' instead of the 'Esoteric' > Section.." etc. etc. BTW, I found this on p. 203 of JH Vol 3 > No. 7-8 (the one you sent me). Thank you for the citation concerning Blavatsky's indorsement of the London Lodge's recommendation to change the name to the Arcane School. Now to be fair, you know that I never said that I have exhaustively searched *everything* HPB had ever written. Also your original question to me was whether I have ever seen anything to this effect in her *private papers.* I answered that I have not, and I stand by that answer. If you recall, you were going to inquire whether Lucis Trust had such a notice of HPB's in their collection of her private papers. The citation you give above is reprinted from a notice in ~Lucifer~ therefore is not from her private papers. Nevertheless, I freely admit to you, that I don't recall seeing this public notice before either. But the way you framed your original question was that this citation is to be found in her private papers. So that is where I looked, and came up empty handed. Now whether or not this letter reflects a genuine desire for HPB to change the name of the ES, or if it is just her indorsing a motion made by the Council in England in reaction to the short lived problems caused by the "Boston Butlerites" is another question. My recollection of this incident with the Boston Gnostic Society was a short lived tempest in a tea pot, that blew over in a very short time, which would very well explain why HPB nor anyone else never followed through with the name change. You need to read the whole letter in context, because the citation in TH is a very short quote trying to prove the authority of Olcott concerning the ES. Spierenburg's reason for reproducing that quote has nothing to do with showing that HPB desired to change the name of the ES. Once you read the whole letter in context, (as it appears in volume XI) it becomes very questionable whether changing the name of the ES to the AS was really her desire to do so, because the letter indicates that, she was only going along with and endorsing a movement started by the Council in England in reaction to the Boston Gnostic Society, and was *not* initiated by herself. You might note that the letter was dated July 7, 1889--almost two years before she died. If changing the name of the ES was truly her desire, and not just her going along with the hysteria of the moment, we would expect to find other letters pushing this through. Remember, that HPB did change the name of the ES once, so I see no reason why she could not have done it a second time if she wanted to. >> It appears that students in the AS are so used to this kind of >> slippage between the word and its meaning that these kind of >> statements go un-noticed. > I object to your last sentence. You know that I hold AS in the > highest esteem (much like perhaps you hold HPB, WQJ or > Parucker). Yes, I have faults and I may not be precise in > writing or not 'sharp' enough in understanding esotericism the > way that you understand it, but what basis do you have to drag > AS into this fault-finding? This reminds me of HPB's lament in > her letter to HSO about desecration of esotericism. Can I > expect you to be more careful in the future? If I have been > insensitive to you or your beliefs, let me know and I will try > to improve myself. This was not intended to be an insult to you, and I apologize for doing so. My criticism was not personal, rather a frank assessment of something that I have noticed concerning every AS student I have met over the years. It is harsh criticism, I admit, but in my experience, it is justified. My I direct you to p. 171 in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY (original edition that I'm sending you, because most of this was deleted in Codd's edition, and what is left and completely out of context and no longer conveys what HPB was trying to say). On this page you will find the sub-heading "Definite Words For Definite Things". Here she (with a greater diplomacy than I have) tries to handle the confusion caused by Sinnett's insistence upon giving the occult terminology different meanings than she gives them. The term in question in this section is the difference between "self" and "soul," where Sinnett had used "soul" to mean "self" with disastrous results that plagues Theosophical students even today. Some may ask "what is the big deal if I use `soul' to mean `self'"? But there is a big difference when one is trying to teach theosophical concepts. These teachings are difficult enough as they are. So why create more confusion by substituting one term for another, or by changing the meaning of terms whenever the spire moves one to do so? We need "definite words for definite things", as HPB says, or we get confusion. >>> Psychology in the human context is in fact the same >>> as psychology in the cosmological context. This is the true >>> basis of brotherhood, everything is interrelated! There is >>> but ONE SOUL!! See for example, p. 233 of TCF "The >>> manifesting Units of Consciousness". > >> This as apparently being so in AAB's teachings, considering >> her dual meaning of the word "psychology." In HPB's >> teachings, to say that "psychology in the human context is in >> fact the same as psychology in the cosmological context" >> would be a nonsense statement, because she doesn't use the >> word "psychology" in a cosmological context. > Again I ask you not to make a blanket statement. Donot be > surprised if we find something in HPB's writings that > contradicts what you are saying, as we continue this > discussion. If I find something in HPB's writings that contradicts this, I will change my position. If my "blanket statement" is incorrect, it will not be the first time in my life that I have erred--but I think I can handle it. However, keep in mind that my thirty years in studying and teaching Theosophy has given me a certain amount of confidence and certitude that I understand what HPB is conveying. There are only so many esoteric terms, so she uses them over and over again, and is quite consistent in her usage of these terms. Since I have found through these thirty years experience that HPB is consistent in her usage of terminology, I think I can say with a reasonable amount of certitude that she is also consistent in her usage of the term "psychology." If there are any HPB students who have found her to be inconsistent in the way that she defines terms, I would be very anxious to hear from them. So far I have never met one. >> Since the "materialistic definition" is not in question >> here, but the substitution of the word "psychological" for >> "theogonic", I still don't follow your point. > Keeping in mind the way AAB talked about HPB's desire to rename > ES as AS (it was not a direct quote of HPB but rather a > 'paraphrase' of what HPB had implied in her letter to HSO, if > indeed this was the letter that was the basis of AAB's > statement), it is possible to imagine that AAB took the meaning > of 'theogonic' instead of using that term; we have not seen > what papers AAB had access to and it may be that even HPB had > used the term psychological instead of theogonic to refer to > this key to SD in those papers. If AAB was basing her decision to name her ES the AS upon the letter you cited that was published in ~Lucifer~ (which was not written to Olcott, but was a public notice, directed to pledged members) then I would have to say that she mis-understood HPB's intent. If it is based upon some private paper that no one seems to have seen other than her, then we will just have to wait and see whether Lucis Trust will be willing to make it public--at which time we will be able to evaluate it. The same thing goes for the "psychological key." So far we have found the term was not used by HPB in any of her writings. Or at least no one has come up with an instance--not even in Eldon's and Brenda's computer search. But anything is possible. By the way, how are we coming on your request. Any response yet? I heard from raj and will send a message tonight and ask for an acknowledgement to assure that he gets it. Does he check his mail daily? I'm about 1/3 of the way through writing a 15 page paper, so I have to get back to work. Best to you Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 5 Feb 1994 09:00:38 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: CW Leadbeater and "Mary" Dear Terry, I'll have to check-- I remember Leslie Price commenting on this in a conference but will take your word for the chronology. Mary may have faded in and out with CWL taking over in between. It's when Mary appeared, not when CWL was acting as medium, that I seem to have gotten mixed up. At any rate, CWL was doing this behind HPB's back which is the crucial factor, not where he stands chronologically in relation to Mary. Still, I stand corrected and will reread Sinnett. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 12:30:07 -0500 From: daratman@aol.com Subject: Re: Joy and Humor Thanks to Andrew for mentioning Norman Cousins book. I read it two days before I went into the hospital. It helped get me through. I'd like to recommend a couple myself... Several years ago I ran across a book entitled "Analyzing Informal Falacies" by S. Morris Engel. It was filled with cartoons that were used to demonstrate specific areas of miscommunication arising when using the English language. Engel itemizes a dozen falacies of logic inherent in the structure of the language and points out how some 200 exceptions to the rules complicate the problem even more. Languages suffering from such poor construction are often more a hindrance to communication than a help. Another book regarding the same problem is "Anguish Languish" by H. L. Chace, retired Professor of French at Miami University of Ohio. He tells several well known stories by the use of puns. Example from "Ladle Rat Rotten Hut"..... "Wants pawn term, dare worsted ladle gull hoe lift wetter murder inner ladle cordage honor itch offer lodge dock florish." By writing this way, Chace teaches many things. Once you have deciphered the puns, you can leave it at that. But the author went a step further, and constructed another message for those that take the time to replace the puns with synonyms. The construction is very much like a rhebus puzzle. In this forum I've seen misunderstandings and frustrations abound, especially when attempting to share a joke. Let's put part of the blame for this where it belongs - on the language itself, and on the difficulty of translating thoughts from one poorly constructed language into another. >Some may ask "what is the big deal if I use `soul' to mean >`self'"? But there is a big difference when one is trying to >teach theosophical concepts. These teachings are difficult >enough as they are. So why create more confusion by substituting >one term for another, or by changing the meaning of terms >whenever the spire moves one to do so? We need "definite words >for definite things", as HPB says, or we get confusion. (Jerry H.E.) A few months ago I attended a lecture in Wheaton by John Algeo. I believe he stated that HPB said that all of her writings could be translated into a few pages of geometry. Now, that's a language I understand and I thought it would save me a lot of time traveling through layers of linguistic mumbo jumbo, misrepresentations, accusations, secrets and lies that have been passed down to us through the centuries. Mr. Algeo's presentation and writings are what brought me more actively into the study of Theosophy and to this forum. My search for Geometric meaning has introduced me to a diverse group, including Pythagoras, Thoth, DaVinci, Galileo, Bach, and Escher, and will perhaps allow me to understand HPB. It is difficult to translate Geometry, Math and Music into words. I certainly haven't done well in my previous postings. It's also difficult to do it the other way around. But Egyptians used to give their children stories that could be translated into geometric drawings. The Hebrew system of Gematria also provides a method of translating words into numbers and patterns. I have to wonder why HPB didn't provide the world with that geometry, if she knew it, and I wonder if we shouldn't be attempting to do that now, rather than defining words with other words, until we agree upon them. Beyond the Physics and Philosophy and Symbology of Geometry, there is Humor and quiet Joy. It is most notable to me in the design of Egyptian hieroglyphics (which the Greeks seem to have missed). Why do you suppose Thoth has the head of an Ibis? Why is the Heart weighed with a Feather? Daniel Hampson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 22:07:43 -0500 From: "Ronald A. Banister" <70402.2301@CompuServe.COM> Subject: New Book Today I received an order form that could be of interest to theosophists. It's message is quoted as follows: " CHURCH UNIVERSAL AND TRIUMPHANT IN SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVE Church Universal and Triumphant is a New Religious Movement in the Theosophical tradition. Since moving its headquarters to Montana in the early 1980's, the church has frequently been in the news, for everything from illegal weapons purchases to the construction of controversial fallout shelters. Most recently, it has been sensationalized by the media as the 'next Waco.' During the Summer of 1993, a team of academic specialists conducted a unique, interdisciplinary study of this fascinating movement." It goes on to list chapters, cost, and an address for the Center for Academic Publication. I am very curious. Can anyone expand on: 1. The relationship between theosophy and this church. 2. Center for Academic Publication. Thanks, Ron Banister From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 23:18:35 -0500 From: HOBB@delphi.com Subject: Back to the Source: Bogus Claims, etc by Terry Hobbes The various discussions on Theos-l, especially the dialogue between Jerry H-E and Arvind Kumar, have prompted the writing of the following notes. These notes have been compiled from several sources and with the help of several friends and acquaintances. A. In 1877, H.P. Blavatsky in Volume I of *Isis Unveiled* told her readers about the Adepts and her role in giving out the fundamentals of the Esoteric Science: ". . .we came into contact with certain men, endowed with such mysterious powers and such profound knowledge that we may truly designate them as the sages of the Orient. To their instructions we lent a ready ear." p. vi "The work now submitted to public judgment is the fruit of a somewhat intimate acquaintance with Eastern adepts and study of their science." p. v B. In *The Key to Theosophy*, H.P.B. talked about the confusion among students of the esoteric and occult. Her words are as true today, especially among many students of Theosophy: "Look around you and observe. While two-thirds of *civilized* society ridicule the mere notion that there is anything in Theosophy, Occultism, Spiritualism, or in the Kabala, the other third is composed of the most heterogeneous and opposite elements. Some believe in the mystical, and even in the *supernatural* (!), but each believes in his own way. Others will rush single-handed into the study of the Kabala, Psychism, Mesmerism, Spiritualism, or some form or another of Mysticism. Result: no two men think alike, not two are agreed upon any fundamental occult principles, though many are those who claim for themselves the *ultima thule* of knowledge, and would make outsiders believe that they are full- blown adepts. . . . .Some limit ancient wisdom to the Kabala and the Jewish Zohar. . . . .Others regard Swedenborg or Boehme as the ultimate expressions of the highest wisdom; while others again see in mesmerism the great secret of ancient magic. One and all of those who put their theory in practice are rapidly drifting, through ignorance, into black magic. Happy are those who escape from it, as they have neither test nor criterion by which they can distinguish between the true and the false." original 1889 edition, pp. 21-22 C. And as early as 1889, H.P.B. mentioned the fact that other individuals had made bogue claims to being in contact with her own Masters K.H. and M.: "Great are the desecrations to which the names of two of the Masters have been subjected. There is hardly a medium who has not cliamed to have seen them. Every bogue swindling Society, for commercial purposes, now claims to be guided and directed by `Masters' often supposed to be far higher than ours! Many and heavy are the sins of those who advanced these claims, prompted either by desire for lucre, vanity, or irresponsible mediumship . . . . The sacred names of Occultism and the hold keepers thereof have been dragged in this filthy mire, polluted by being associated with sordid motives and immoral practices, while thousands of men and have been held back from the path of truth and light through the discredit and evil report which such shams, swindles, and frauds have brought upon the whole subject." *The Key to Theosophy*, p. 301 D. During H.P.B.'s lifetime, even several Theosophists had made claims to being in contact with the Masters K.H. & M., *independent* of H.P.B.'s intermediary. A.P. Sinnett, who was the major recepient of *The Mahatma Letters*, made such a claim and Sinnett's claim was pronounced *false and untrue* by the Master K.H. himself. Sinnett wrote in *The Early Days of Theosophy*: "About this time [early July 1884] Mrs. Holloway, a wonderfully gifted American psychic came to stay with us. . . . .She used to get vivid clairvoyant visions of the Master, - could pass on messages to me from K.H. and on one occasion he actually made use of her to speak to me in the first person." p. 27 But the Master K.H. in a letter received July 18, 1884 told Sinnett: "You ask me if you can tell Miss Arundale what I told you thro' Mrs. H[olloway]. . . . . .[But] I have never . . . communicated with you or any one else thro' her. . . . . She is an excellent but quite undeveloped clairvoyante. . . . ." *The Mahatma Letters*, Second edition, p. 355 Despite this emphatic denial by K.H., Sinnett persisted in searching for another "channel" independent of H.P.B. In *The Autobiography of Alfred Percy Sinnett*, he wrote: "On the 26th of April 1886. . . we went . . . to the Albemarle Club . . . to meet a lady who was . . . desirous of making my acquaintance . . . . . I will give her a fictitious name and call her Mary. . . . shortly afterwards I tried a mesmeric experiment with her (in accordance with her wish) and obtained remarkable results - she went very easily into a trance in which she became unequivocally clairvoyant. . . .I became convinced that she clairvoyantly saw the mountain region in Tibet where the Master K.H. resided. . . . . It became obvious that Mary might become a link between myself and the Master. . . . . Mary came to stay with us . . . in February 1888 and our regular mesmeric sittings were resumed almost every evening , the Master [KH] talking to me through her in most cases. In this way I gathered a great deal of miscellaneous occult information. . . . . Mary left us to go to her own home in May 1888 having had mesmeric sitting almost every evening while she was with us, at most of which the Master spoke to me, - or rather dictated to her what he wished to say. She would pass into a higher condition in which she could be in touch with him and be enabled to repeat his words to her in reply to my questions or remarks." pp 33 & 38-39 Yet Master KH in another letter (dated August 22, 1888) to Colonel Henry S. Olcott again denied Sinnett's claim: "Since1885 I have not writt, nor caused to be written save thro' her[HPB's] agency, direct or remote, a letter or line to anybody in Europe or America, nor communicated orally *with*, or *thro'* any third party. Theosophists should learn it. You will understand later the significance of this declaration so keep it in mind. Her [HPB's] fidelity to our work being constant, and her sufferings having come upon her thro' it, neither I nor either of my Brother associates will desert or supplant her." *Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom*, Series I, 1973, p. 45 E. Sinnett and other Theosophists had written various expositions on the Theosophical teachings during the early and mid 1880s. HPB in *The Secret Doctrine* stated quite forcefully that they had indulged in "wild and fanciful speculation": "The publication of many of the facts herein stated has been rendered necessary by the wild and fanciful speculation in which many Theosophists and students of mysticism have indulged, during the last few years, in their endeavour to, as they imagined, work out a complete system of thought from the few facts previously communicated to them." S.D., original edition, Vol I, p. viii And Master K.H. in his August 1888 letter to Olcott had also spoken on this very subject: "I have also noted, your thoughts about the `Secret Doctrine.' Be assured that what she [HPB] has not *annotated* from scientific and other works, we have given or *suggested* to her. Every mistake or erroneous notion, corrected and explained by her from the works of other theosophists *was corrected by me, or under my instruction*. It is a more valuable work than its predecessor, an epitome of occult truths that will make it a source of information and instruction for the earnest student for long years to come.: *Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom*, Series I, p. 47 In light of these "wild and fanciful speculations" during H.P.B.'s own lifetime, how many more "wild and fanciful speculations" have been published after H.P.B.'s death when she was not around to correct or refute them? See Ray Morgan's pamphlet *Misleading Mayavic Ideations* for examples given in CW Leadbeater's and A Besant's writings. F. Arvind Kumar in earlier communications on Theos-L quoted the following passage from H.P.B. in discussing the claim that Alice Bailey was the expected disciple of the Masters in the 20th century: "In Century the Twentieth some discipl more inford, and far better fitte, may be sent by the Masters of Wisdom to give final and irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called *Gupta- Vidya*; and that . . . the source of all religions and philosophies . . . has been for many ages forgotten and lost to me, but is at last found." S.D., Vol I, p xxxviii (orig ed) This psaage was probably written in the first part of 1888 and the student should compare and correlate it with the following two passages from HPB's pen. The first one was written in Dec 1888 and the second one in the first part of 1889. The three passages *taken together* indicate that HPB was referring to an emissary of the Masters coming in 1975 or later. This would seem to rule out the messenger being Alice Bailey, G. de Purucker or any of the other claimants listed in Section G of this paper. Passage (1): "Let every member [of the Esoteric Section] know . . . that the time for such priceless acquisition is limited. The writer of the present is old; her life is well-nigh worn out, and she may be summoned `home' any day and almost any hour. And if her place is even filled up, perchance by another worthier and more learned than herself, still *there remain but twelve years* to the last hour of the term - namely, till December the 31st, 1899. Those who will not have profited by the opportunity (given to the world in every last quarter of a century), those who will not have reached a certain point of psychic and spiritual development, or that point from which begins the cycle of adeptship, by that day - those will advance no further than the knowledge already acquired. No Master of Wisdom from the East will appear or send any one to Europe or America after that period, and the sluggards will have to renounce every chance of advancement in their present incarnation - until the year 1975. Such is the LAW, for we are in *Kali Yuga* - the Black Age - and the restrictions in this cycle, the first 5,000 years of which will expire in 1897, are great and almost insuperable." HPB's *Collected Writings*, Vol XII, pp. 491-492 Passage (2): ". . .during the last quarter of every hundred years an attempt is made by those `Masters' . . . to help on the spiritual progress of Humanity in a marked and definite way. Towards the close of each century you will invariably find that an outpouring or upheaval of spirituality - or call it mysticism if you prefer - has taken place. Some one or more persons have appeared in the world as their agents, and a greater or less amount of occult knowledge and teaching has been given out . . . . .If the present attempt, in the form of our Society, succeeds better than its predecessors have done, then it will be in exitence as an organized, living and healthy body when the time comes for the effort of the XXth century. The general condition of men's minds and hearts will have been improved and purified by the spread of its teachings . . . . but besides a large and accessible literature ready to men's hands, the next impulse will find a numerous and *united* body of people ready to welcome the new torch-bearer of Truth. He will find the minds of men prepared for his message, a language ready for him in which to clothe the new truths he brings, an organization awaiting his arrival . . . ." *The Key to Theosophy*, pp. 306-7 G. Keeping in mind HPB's 3 passages on the "new torch-bearer of Truth", we find that after HPB's death in 1891, numerous individuals who have claimed to be in contact with her Adept Teachers, have claimed to be a "messenger" of the Masters and have conveyed new and more esoteric Teachings. As Dr. Gordon Melton has written: "A number of individuals have claimed contact with one of the Masters first described by Blavatsky and have begun new organizations based upon the individual revelation imparted." Here is a partial list of the claimants: (1) In the 1890s, W.Q. Judge said he was in contact with HPB's Master Morya. Judge precipitated letter in this Master's name and gave out certain E.S. teachings; (2) Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater affirmed that they were in communication with HPB's Masters and gave out volumious Theosophical teachings. (3) Katherine Tingley, the occult successor of Judge, said she was in contact with HPB's Masters and claimed to have met on at least two occasions the Master Morya in his physical body. (4) G. de Purucker, Tingley's successor, testified that the Masters M. & K.H. came to visit him in 1929 at T.S. headquarters, Point Loma, SAn Diego, California. GdP also gave out more esoteric teachings than HPB, Judge or Tingley were allowed to give out. (5) Alice Bailey said she was in contact with K.H. and D.K and transmitted more than 20 volumes of teachings said to be from D.K. She even gave out further installments from the Stanzas of Dzyan. (6) Mrs. Francia A. La Due (of the Temple of the People) gave out messages from the Masters, especially from Hilarion. She also published more Stanzas from the Book of Dzyan. (7) Guy Ballard (of the "I Am" Movement) calimed to be in communication with the Masters, especially St. Germain; (8) Helena Roerich (of the Agni Yoga Society) gave out about 13 volumes of communications from the Master Morya; (9) Mark Prophet and his wife Elizabeth Clare (of the Church Universal and Triumphant) have affirmed to be the emissaries of the Great Whitel Brotherhood and have channeled thousands of messages from El Morya, Kut Humi, the Virgin Mary, Hercules, Chastity and a variety of other Masters and entities; (1) Earlyne Chaney (of Astara) claimed communication with Kut-Hi-Mi and Zoser and other Masters of the Great White Brotherhood. She has given out certain esoteric and occult teachings. (11) Nada-Yolanda (of the Mark Age Metacenter in Florida) has channeled numerous messages from M., K.H., and others Masters associated with UFOs; (12) Max Heindel, Rudolf Steiner and Geoffrey Hodson have claimed to possess clairvoyant powers and to be in contact with various Masters, whether Rosicrucian, Theosophical or otherwise. (13) Other supposed communications from HPB's Masters have come from Brother Phillip in his book titled *Secret of the Andes*, from Cyril Scott in his series of books starting with *The Initiate*, from David Andreas in his book *Through the Eyes of the Masters*, from ... And the list could go on. But what person has the money, time and effort to read and study the hundreds of books put out by all the individuals listed above? Or to try to sort through the morass of contradictory claims and teachings given by all these latter-day messengers of the Masters? How many of their claims would HPB label "bogus" and how many of their teachings would she describe as "wild and fanciful speculation"? Instead of trying to wade through even 1/10th of all this latter-day teachings, why don't students of Theosophy turn to HPB's own voluminous writings and seriously study them? If no other Theosophical writer had every written a book on Theosophy after HPB died in 1891, we would still have more than 22 volumes of HPB's own writings to read, study, ponder and apply. And we would also have *The Mahatma Letters* and two volumes of *The Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom*. I would suggest that there is enough metaphysics, occult informtion, practical advise, ethical counsel , devotional material, spiritual exercises, etc. in HPB's and the Masters' writings to last most of us a lifetime! Furthermore, why did the Masters want HPB to write all of this material if it was to be superseded and supplanted withing a relatively short period of time by the writings of Judge, de Purucker, Besant, Leadbeater, or Bailey, etc.? The Master KH wrote that "we have broken the silence of centuries" in giving out the teachings of Theosophy (as found in HPB's writings and the Masters' letters) and yet far too many students of Theosophy down thorugh the decades and even today consider these writings not important enough to read, let alone to study! Students of Theosophy can believe or disbelive in whatever they want to; they can read and study whatever they choose to. But why not go to the *FOUNTAIN SOURCE* of the Theosophical Movement (i.e., HPB's writings and the letters of the Masters) and read and study these writings - *without* having these writings filtered through and interpreted by later claimants whether Judge, de Purucker, Besant, Leadbeater, Bailey, etc ? If you really believe HPB was in contact with Adepts and that she gave out genuine and valuable teachings, why not study these teachings instead of some latter-day claimant whose claims and teachings may or may not be true? And with so many individuals claiming to be a messenger of the Masters, why not study HPB and use the criteria to be found in her writings and teachings to test whether later claims are true or false? THERE IS NO RELIGION (belief, opinion, conviction, etc.) HIGHER THAN THE TRUTH P.S. This is a first rough draft with plenty of typos. Please overlook the outer shell of my presentation! Terry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 09:23:11 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Back to the Source: Bogus Claims, etc by Terry Hobbes Dear Terry, Thanks for the labor you have put into this. While I generally agree with you, I would draw a distinction on the issue of teachings allegedly superseding those of HPB. Purucker's are mostly oriented to filling in the blanks and are VERY respectful of HPB-- no claim to supersede her is made by him in the same sense of many others you name. By the way, I reread Sinnett's autobiography and found that Leadbeater was part of S.'s circle before he left for Asia, but didn't get involved in the channeling stuff until after his return. Thus my confusion on chronology. I look forward to your next posting. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 10:34:48 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: New Book Re: Center for Academic Publication-- it is not listed in the 1993-4 Books in Print list of publishers. Will check for a bibliographic record for this on OCLC. As to Theosophy's connection to CUT, Prophet comes out of the I AM tradition, which emerged in the 1930s and emphasizes Saint-Germain as an ascended master. But "el-Morya" and "Kuthumi," the CUT versions of HPB's Masters, are a crucial element in Prophet's pantheon of ascended sources. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 18:10:45 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: AAB/HPB Jerry H-E, I have been rather busy with my other duties today and have not been able to write what I had thought of writing to you over the weekend. Mainly I was quite concerned that I may have come across as perhaps too stern in my last message to you. If I did manage to 'mess up your weekend', now I am asking you for your foregiveness in the spirit of brotherhood. After all we have undertaken this 'project' in the spirit of uncovering the 'truth' about true teaching and at least one teaching that both AAB and HPB agree on is our interconnectedness with everything else in this universe and the idea of universal brotherhood. If I may, I'd like to quote from AAB ('Problems of Humanity'): "That is truly spiritual which properly relates man to man, and man to God. Spirituality is essentially the establishing of right human relations, the promotion of goodwill, and finally, the establishing of a true peace on earth". If I hurt you (even inadvertently), I am hurting myself! It is good to keep everything in perspective and let us resolve to keep the idea of 'seeking to help (not hurt), to love (not hate), to serve (and not exact due service)' in mind as we write these messages. Perhaps we will be discussing sensitive areas again soon enough, let us see if we can become dispassionate, detached and discriminative (I donot know about you but I know I am working on all these three at this time!) through this process. > Wow! Obviously, my message to you concerning FB was > entirely mis-understood. What distresses me the most is that I'm > not sure why. May I ask if English is your second language? If > so, this may explain a lot. I know from personal experience that > when reading in French, I often completely miss the point because > of not being familiar with a word, or not familiar with a > particular meaning of a word in a certain context. Sometimes I > will miss the point of a whole article because of unfamiliarity > with an underlying meaning, that would have been obvious if I had > grown up in the French culture. English was my second language and I may be somewhat handicapped by the fact that I was not born here (I consider it to be my first language now, having lived here in the US for over 17 yrs). It may help you (for future use) to know the real reason for my 'outburst' on the subject of FB's lie, even if you did it as part of a joke. I feel, nay I know, that I owe a great deal to AAB, and because of what FB did for AAB, to FB as well. Whatever anyone may say of AAB's books, I know what they have done to me, and that is why it is hard for me to accept, even in a joke, anyone suggesting that AAB or FB lied, without a substantial proof thereof. Another idea that occurred to me is that FB may have referred to TSD instead of SD in the same way that people used to talk of 'xeroxing' instead of 'copying' in the early days of copier machines. For the vast population of theosophists out their, the two (SD and TSD) are one and the same thing. Also, about the occult status of FB, many people think that he was very highly evolved (a third degree initiate or higher). Are you familiar with this system of gradations for people on the path? In any case, only the Masters are perhaps not amenable to make mistakes; most of us are not that precise in our communications. One of the things I did learn from AAB/AS is that we all need to be extremely precise in our communication. I have tried to observe myself and have noticed improvements in general, but what has happenned in my messages to you in many cases is 'the sacrifice of precision in favor of speed of delivery of the message', if you know what I mean! I'd like to hear your views on how effective my communication is regularly! > If AAB was basing her decision to name her ES the AS upon > the letter you cited that was published in ~Lucifer~ (which was > not written to Olcott, but was a public notice, directed to > pledged members) then I would have to say that she mis-understood > HPB's intent. If it is based upon some private paper that no one > seems to have seen other than her, then we will just have to wait > and see whether Lucis Trust will be willing to make it public--at > which time we will be able to evaluate it. The same thing goes > for the "psychological key." So far we have found the term was > not used by HPB in any of her writings. Or at least no one has > come up with an instance--not even in Eldon's and Brenda's > computer search. But anything is possible. By the way, how are > we coming on your request. Any response yet? I have not sent the formal request as yet! Hope to do that soon though. In Brotherhood, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 18:19:23 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Bogus Claims Terry Hobbes Thank you very, very much for your Feb. 6 message "Bogus Claims etc." It took a lot of time for you to compile that information, and I'm grateful that you took the time to do it. Every word of it was in dire need to be said. Regarding your final remark: Indeed, a careful study of H.P.B.'s writings, gives us the information we need to test the consistency of the teachings of those who claim to be successors to H.P.B. It seems to be the only real tool we have. Thank you Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 00:21:17 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: AAB/HPB Arvind > If I hurt you (even inadvertently), I am hurting myself! It is > good to keep everything in perspective and let us resolve to > keep the idea of 'seeking to help (not hurt), to love (not > hate), to serve (and not exact due service)' in mind as we > write these messages. Perhaps we will be discussing sensitive > areas again soon enough, let us see if we can become > dispassionate, detached and discriminative (I donot know about > you but I know I am working on all these three at this time!) > through this process. I wasn't hurt, but rather distressed. I used the joke because it was an excellent and humorous way to illustrate a very important point. I recall that over a month ago you had chastised me roundly for accusing AAB of lying, when I never used the word "lie", nor did it cross my mind to accuse her of doing such a thing. I thought we had resolved that issue. Nevertheless, the memory of that event came to mind as I transcribed the joke, queued by the word "lie." It was to insure that there woud not be another misunderstanding that I prefaced a few lines explaining the significance of the joke, before spelling it out. Obviously I had failed to communicate, and that is distressing. > English was my second language and I may be somewhat > handicapped by the fact that I was not born here (I consider it > to be my first language now, having lived here in the US for > over 17 yrs). It may help you (for future use) to know the real > reason for my 'outburst' on the subject of FB's lie, even if > you did it as part of a joke. I feel, nay I know, that I owe a > great deal to AAB, and because of what FB did for AAB, to FB as > well. Whatever anyone may say of AAB's books, I know what they > have done to me, and that is why it is hard for me to accept, > even in a joke, anyone suggesting that AAB or FB lied, without > a substantial proof thereof. I would like to tell you a story. You will understand why as you read it: After studying French for a year, I bought a ticket and went alone to France for five weeks. All together, I stayed for three weeks in Vannes where I took a French course, and two weeks in Paris. The most memorable feeling about that trip was my sense of humiliation and frustration, not having enough command of the language to follow what people said to me or to be quite sure what the signs were saying all of the time. Even when I forced myself to speak, I was in constant terror of saying "tu" when I should be saying "vous" or worse yet, make a cultural error without realizing it. I'm now at the point where I can read theosophical books, documents and articles written in French, and only rarely have to resort to the dictionary. So last semester I signed up for a French literature course. We read short stories written in French, and we discussed them in French. That was a shock. Where I could read theosophical material with little trouble, for these French short stories, I had the dictionary in hand looking up words and piecing meanings together in almost every sentence. It was not the vocabulary (though that was a factor too), but it was the cultural context that threw me. I could translate the sentence, and still not know the meaning! Yet, I could read the Theosophical material with no difficulty, because I had been reading this kind of material in English for many years. But French short stories are the product of a culture that I had little experience with. To give you an idea of what I mean: I assume you are aware of the sexual connotation of cherries in American culture. In the French they have no such meaning, but apricots do! In American culture, being late for an appointment means that you "stood someone up." In France, it means that you "posed a rabbit." Last semester, I took a seminar on literary criticism, where we focused upon a single book--THE AWAKENING. It is a short novel based in the background of French-Creole Society in the Southern United States in the 19th century. Upon reading it, I recognized a lot of symbolism concerning death, salvation and rebirth. In the first scene of the novel, there is a parrot who screeches profanities in French and English. One of the things he is quoted to say is: "Allez vous-en! Allez vous-en! Sapristi!." The footnote translated the phrase to mean "Go away! Go away! For God's sake!" I was very suspicious of the translation of the word "Sapristi" to mean "For God's sake." So, I looked up the word in my French-English dictionary, where the word was translated as an interjection meaning "hangit!" That was useless, so I consulted my French dictionary (French words and definitions in French). It had the single word definition "sacristi," which meant nothing to me, so I looked up "sacristi" in the same dictionary, it said "juron familier" (i.e. a familiar oath). Well I was getting nowhere fast, so I went to my French professor and showed him the passage. He said that a better translation for "sapristi" would have been "for Christ's sake." Then he went on to explain that "sapristi" is a contraction of two words: "sang" and "Cristi," i.e. " blood" and "Christ," thus literally, Christ's blood. Thus the meaning "Christ's sake" alluding to Jesus' blood sacrifice on the cross. The retranslation then fell right into the pattern of symbols that I had already recognized as alluding to death, salvation and re- birth. The retranslation from "for God's sake" to "for Christ's sake" made all of the difference in the world. These are some very common illustrations about how culture determines meaning. There are countless others. The trouble with learning a new language is that the first five years or so of ones life is when most of ones native language is learned. It is learned without effort, because the child is absorbing it through cultural context. I've been studying French for about four years, yet there is a lot about the language that any four year old French child could teach me. This is because I never grew up in the culture. How much more difficult it is for you, who came over here in your twenties (is that right?). Even if you were familiar with the Anglo-Indian English, you still didn't have the benefit of the American culture to learn the American English through. Actually, If I was more astute, I would have given more attention to certain characteristic misspellings and phrases that occur over and over again in your messages. They are a dead give- a-way to the observant that English is your second language. But what this means for you is that the meaning of what you read becomes less sure, and is dependent upon your knowledge of the subtleties of the American culture. A language expert once told me that English is a fairly easy language to learn superficially, but it takes about 45 years to learn it well. > English was my second language and I may be somewhat > handicapped by the fact that I was not born here (I consider it > to be my first language now, having lived here in the US for > over 17 yrs). It may help you (for future use) to know the > real reason for my 'outburst' on the subject of FB's lie, even > if you did it as part of a joke. I feel, nay I know, that I > owe a great deal to AAB, and because of what FB did for AAB, to > FB as well. Whatever anyone may say of AAB's books, I know > what they have done to me, and that is why it is hard for me to > accept, even in a joke, anyone suggesting that AAB or FB lied, > without a substantial proof thereof. As I said, the "joke" was intended to teach, not to insult or to accuse. But this incident raises some concerns for me. What if we were to find "substantial proof" (whatever that is) that AAB or FB lied, or were frauds, or whatever negative things you might think of. Would you be able to handle that revelation? After all, you say that you "owe a great deal to AAB." Does part of that debt to her include protecting yourself from any truths that might tarnish or destroy your image of her? Only you can answer that question, but it is an important one to ask yourself. > Another idea that occurred to me is that FB may have referred > to TSD instead of SD in the same way that people used to talk > of 'xeroxing' instead of 'copying' in the early days of copier > machines. For the vast population of theosophists out their, > the two (SD and TSD) are one and the same thing. Yes we have "Cellophane tape" and "Scotch tape," "copying machine" and "xerox machine." People use these words interchangeably, and is based upon what is called "brand familiarity." For TSD and the SD, I think the issue is different. In my 30 years experience, I don't recall hearing anyone using those two phrases interchangeably. The SD is a term used in TSD, but is rarely used in conversation or in writings. Instead of "the SD," most people use terms such as "The Ancient Wisdom" or "Theosophical Teachings." In my experience, people generally say something like "~The Secret Doctrine~ is an outline of theosophical teachings." This kind of phrasing shows that they *do* make the distinction, and change "SD" to "Theosophical Teachings" or "Ancient Wisdom" to avoid the redundancy of a phrase like: "~The Secret Doctrine~ is an outline of the Secret Doctrine." If AAB did use these words interchangeably, it would strike me as a strange idiosyncrasy. Can you find a pattern of instances in her writings where she uses these two words interchangeably? > Also, about the occult status of FB, many people think that > he was very highly evolved (a third degree initiate or higher). > Are you familiar with this system of gradations for people > on the path? Yes I am familiar with this "system of gradations," and I have to be honest with you--statements of people's occult status is something that I take with a grain of salt. It means nothing to me. If you were per chance to tell me that FB Bailey was now the Maha Chohan, it would mean nothing to me. Not that I don't understand who the Maha Chohan is; I just can't verify these kinds of claims. Regardless of what occult status any person claims for themselves or is claimed for them, I look at their lives and writings with the same scrutiny if they made no claims at all. If I find errors or ignorance in the writings of people who claim high occult status, it just makes them look that much more ridiculous. > In any case, only the Masters are perhaps > not amenable to make mistakes; most of us are not that > precise in our communications. One of the things I did > learn from AAB/AS is that we all need to be extremely > precise in our communication. I have tried to observe myself > and have noticed improvements in general, but what has > happenned in my messages to you in many cases is 'the sacrifice > of precision in favor of speed of delivery of the message', > if you know what I mean! I'd like to hear your views on how > effective my communication is regularly! If FB were a third or fourth degree initiate, as you suggest, then perhaps I should take your queue and have very high expectations for the precision of his language. Since precision in our communications is one of the things you have learned from the AS, then you can sympathize with my problem with occult writers who use words with different meanings interchangeably. As for your messages, when I don't follow your logic, I always let you know. I just turned in about 30 pages of essays this morning. It feels good to have time to free write like this again. Best Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 10:05:47 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: New Book Hothis is Sorry for the junk, but something is wrong with the line to Richmond. Anyway the Center for Academic Publication is based in Stanford and has no previous books but publishes two journals, one on native American religion, the other on religious studies generally. So the forthcoming book should be a legit scholarly enterprise. I was afraid the CUT had created a front organization like the Moonies had-- but apparently not so. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 10:48:44 -0500 From: BALAM@delphi.com Subject: Back to the Source To Terry, I also would like to thank you for your BACK TO THE SOURCE submission. You and your friends have brought out many ideas that were in the back of my mind, not only concerning the discussion of HPB/AAB, but what is consistently and obviously the state of affairs among theosophists in general. There seems to be a common tendency to "give oneself" to a writer because of a certain chemistry we might "feel" with them at the expense of a valid understanding of *FOUNTAIN SOURCE* material, as you put it. I would like to bring up a point or two for further elucidation. From time to time, the quote, "In Century Twentieth some disciple more informed, and far better fit, may be sent by the Masters of Wisdom........" It seems to me that most theosophists are interpreting this "MAY be sent" statement, as if H.P.B. is saying WILL be sent. My question is: Did the Mahatmas them- selves express the intent to send anyone else after Blavatsky? If so, can anyone refer to a quote on this matter? Another point Terry: You write that 'The Master KH wrote that "we have broken the silence of the centuries" in giving out the teachings of Theosophy.....etc'. Can you explain then why H.P.B. says in the CW Vol XII, that an opportunity is "given to the world in EVERY last quarter of a century"? If we are to expect someone to be sent at this present time, in our 20th century; who then was it that appeared in the last quarter of the 18th century, and did the Mahatmas know about it? Sarah From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 14:05:51 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: Responses to Paul, Jim Paul Johnson > Since then, however, > I have explored the Fourth Way movement and Swami > Satchidananda's satsang in local groups, have participated in > A.R.E. Study Group program, and have studied astrology at some > length. Going to India was the high point of my life and I > would like to make contact with an experientially-oriented > group with some links to Sikhism; thus the interest in > Radhasoami and offshoots. I gather that the Beas outfit is > very conservative, makes you give up meat and alcohol to get > initiated etc. and am wondering if the Sawan Kirpal Ruhani > Mission (Darshan Singh's disciples, with an ashram here in VA) > might be easier to approach. > Paul, sorry it took me a little while but I did have a couple of follow-up questions on this information you gave out sometime back. What is the Fourth Way movement, and ARE study group program? Who is Swami Satchitananda; does he teach Hatha Yoga as well (I have a videotape of a Swami Satchitananda who has an Ashram somewhere in WVirginia with a bunch of exercises on it). Also, where are you located these days, in Virginia or Boston? Jim Meier I got the text of your talk and other Lucis Trust materials a few days back; thanks. We hosted a couple of talks by Sarah Mchecknie in the Dallas area a couple of years ago, and I have with me plenty of very good literature. Are you planning to send the text of your talk anywhere for publication; have you considered it for posting on theos-l? It gives an excellent historical overview of the theosophical organizations and puts the Bailey material in perspective. We have at least three Bailey study groups in the Dallas area, and if you tell me when exactly you are coming, I'd be glad to arrange at least a lunch or something with a friend of mine who belongs to one of these three groups. You can call me at 214 997 0613 during ofc hrs (214 867 0101 otherwise) to set up the time and place to meet etc. There are three groups not because of any quarrel or anything but rather due to the spread of the area and the difficulty of reaching the locations for everyone in this vast area. I am glad to note that you are enjoying the discussions on AAB/ HPB that we are having. I'd love to see you contribute to the discussion as well, as and when possible. Regarding Zip Codes, I am told the Post Office now has adopted Zip+6 as the new standard (I noted it on some of the newsletters that I get). The theory is that if you put all 6 digits after the zip code, the letters will reach the destination much faster, or at least a little faster. So our zip code indeed is 75023-800824. One last thing. I also heard from a person about the possibility of starting an on-line Bailey discussion group on the Internet. Will let you know more as and when I find out more, if you are interested. All the best, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 15:44:47 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: Re:sponse to Terry Hobbes Hi Terry (Jerry H-E, some stuff below is for you), > The various discussions on Theos-l, especially > the dialogue between Jerry H-E and Arvind Kumar, have prompted the > writing of the following notes. These notes have been compiled > from several sources and with the help of several friends and > acquaintances. I want to join others in thanking you for contributing to the discussion on theos-l/roots. I also appreciate your previous comments regarding theosophic history that you made specifically for my benefit. > Instead of trying to wade through even 1/10th of all this > latter-day teachings, why don't students of Theosophy turn to HPB's > own voluminous writings and seriously study them? I guess one problem with this approach is that many people are not aware of HPB teachings to begin with. In my own case, I started with Bailey on the recommendation of at least a couple of people and found my way to HPB through Bailey writings. Let me also say that the HPB material that I have read so far is excellent (to say the least) but for me so far anyways, fits in completely with what I already know from the Bailey books/AS teaching. It provides historical perspective (much like learning from 'grandma' in the form of HPB teaching as well as 'ma' in the form of AAB teaching). And I do intend to read all of HPB writings as soon as practical. > If no other Theosophical writer had every written a book on > Theosophy after HPB died in 1891, we would still have more than 22 > volumes of HPB's own writings to read, study, ponder and apply. And > we would also have *The Mahatma Letters* and two volumes of *The > Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom*. I would suggest that there > is enough metaphysics, occult informtion, practical advise, ethical > counsel, devotional material, spiritual exercises, etc. in HPB's and > the Masters' writings to last most of us a lifetime! The two volumes of "The letters from MOW".. who are they written by? JHE, do you carry them and what do you think of them? > Furthermore, why did the Masters want HPB to write all of this > material if it was to be superseded and supplanted withing a > relatively short period of time by the writings of Judge, de Purucker, > Besant, Leadbeater, or Bailey, etc.? I can only speak for the Bailey material; it was written during 1920-50 and appeared in print gradually by 1960 (30-80 years after HPB's writings). It seeks to provide further explanation of what HPB wrote and IMHO gives very plausible explanations for some of the things that HPB touched upon and did not completely give out, alongwith some entirely new information. AAB material is considered to be the second instalment of the new dispensation for the aquarian age (the third stage is still to come). Perhaps the Masters would have loved to gave all necessary instruction for this era through HPB, but she was quite sick, and could not stay alive for all instruction to be given through her. More likely and this is strictly my theory, HPB was a great initiate (ARHAT) but not a MASTER. My understanding is that the Masters meet and update their plans as conditions warrant. In AAB perhaps was found the right vehicle(s) for transmission of further hierarchial teaching. HPB might not have been aware of the Masters' plans, or could have been wrong in asserting, if she asserted, that no more of the teaching is going to be given until 1975. I want to draw yours and JHE's attention towards a line that appears on p. 235 of JTH July -Oct 1991 in a review of the book "Rene Guenon and the future of the West:the life and the writings of a 20th century metaphysician" by Joscelyn Godwin: "These recommendations must be accompanied by a warning that Guenon, like HPB, is not always accurate". Are you aware of any instances where HPB may have been wrong? > Students of Theosophy can believe or disbelive in whatever they > want to; they can read and study whatever they choose to. But why > not go to the *FOUNTAIN SOURCE* of the Theosophical Movement (i.e., > HPB's writings and the letters of the Masters) and read and study > these writings - *without* having these writings filtered through and > interpreted by later claimants whether Judge, de Purucker, Besant, > Leadbeater, Bailey, etc ? This is a great suggestion for a beginner on the path, and I support it fully. > If you really believe HPB was in contact with Adepts and that she > gave out genuine and valuable teachings, why not study these teachings > instead of some latter-day claimant whose claims and teachings may > or may not be true? And with so many individuals claiming to be a > messenger of the Masters, why not study HPB and use the criteria to > be found in her writings and teachings to test whether later claims > are true or false? > > THERE IS NO RELIGION (belief, opinion, conviction, etc.) > HIGHER THAN THE TRUTH Yes, this is an approach that should be used. I donot know what else you are going to cover next, but I certainly look forward to reading from your new posts again soon. You seem to be close to Daniel; I enjoyed the exchange of a couple of messages on theos-l with him. What is he upto these days? Can you say a few words of the work that he is doing, and perhaps what you are doing as well? Best Regards, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 16:55:37 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Responses to Paul, Jim Dear Arvind, A.R.E. is the Association for Research and Enlightenment, founded by Edgar Cayce. The study groups work with material he channeled specifically for such groups, called "A Search for God." Fourth Way is a term for the Gurdjieff/Ouspensky movement and offshoots. By the way, I'm deep into Radhasoami reading and have learned that all the groups are equally demanding that one give up everything before getting the secret teachings. So I'll not go out of my way to meet them. South Boston is a small town in south-central Virginia as well as a neighborhood of Boston MA. Hope this covers everything. Namaste Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 17:25:41 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Calling People Liars The exchange between Arvind and JHE on whether Foster Bailey may have lied reminded me of some painful exchanges I've had. Several angry letters to Gnosis accused me of "calling HPB a liar." Eldon questioned me on this very point, and then never responded to my explanation. Now in my opinion, to point out that HPB made mutually contradictory statements, which implies that some of them cannot be true, leads immediately to the question of what she was concealing and why. Pointing out the conflicts is by no means "calling someone a liar" in the sense of an attack meant to undermine a person's reputation. I have never attacked HPB in my life and never will. But I have most definitely been attacked, and viciously, by Theosophists who think that they are defending HPB from my supposed attacks. What gives here? I suggest that somewhere in each of us is the potential of an authoritarian personality, with the need to believe we have access to completely reliable truth from an authority which cannot be questioned. Certainly that manifests itself in religion but also among Marxists, Freudians, etc. But the thing I don't get is that HPB is so relentlessly anti-authoritarian (in a rather in-your-face mode at times) as to make it seemingly impossible to set her up as exactly the thing she most warned against-- a religious authority. While Terry's historical perspective is helpful in placing post-HPB developments in context, why stop there? Putting HPB in context of the sources from whom she learned takes us back a step further. Why accept hers as the final word on Kabbalah, Masonry, Vedanta, etc. when each of those traditions supplies us with voluminous sources which existed long prior to her? I suggest that going back to the Source be understood as a direction, not a goal. We never get all the way back (unless the Radhasoami folks really do know how) but we can always understand each phenomenon in terms of the preexisting context from which it arose. To Arvind-- re Joscelyn and HPB's mistakes: Her reading of Tibetan Buddhism immediately comes to mind as a possible basis of his comments. She admits straightforwardly that her knowledge of the subject is quite limited-- as is shown by her use of the term dugpa to identify Black magicians. Any Tibetan will tell you that the Gelugpa regard the redhat (unreformed) Buddhists with respect and by no means think they are some evil brotherhood with which the good guys are engaged in some cosmic struggle. Another example is her reading of the doctrine of the three kayas, which again any scholar of Tibetan Buddhism will regard as misleading-- suggesting that the three vestures are somehow distinct alternatives when in fact they are simultaneous realities. One could hardly write as voluminously as HPB on so many complex subjects without some errors. She freely admitted that her work contained mistakes and never tried to present herself as the absolute authority which many would make of her today. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 22:50:25 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: H.P.B. and THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY Paul Is it possible that the "Center for Academic Publications" could be another organization with the same name? Did you cross check the ISBN coding for a match? Or did this Stanford organization confirm that this CUT study is their own creation? > While Terry's historical perspective is helpful in placing > post-HPB developments in context, why stop there? Putting HPB > in context of the sources from whom she learned takes us back a > step further. Why accept hers as the final word on Kabbalah, > Masonry, Vedanta, etc. when each of those traditions supplies > us with voluminous sources which existed long prior to her? I > suggest that going back to the Source be understood as a > direction, not a goal. We never get all the way back (unless > the Radhasoami folks really do know how) but we can always > understand each phenomenon in terms of the preexisting context > from which it arose. My understanding is that this is precisely what H.P.B. was trying to get students of Theosophy to do. She didn't want her writings to become holy script, but to be studied so that they would become a springboard for further research. I'm glad you brought this out. Arvind Yes I carry THE LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS OF WISDOM. Let me know if you want me to send you a set. Regarding your quote from TH; I think that a little back ground on this Journal is in order. The Journal is published independently of any Theosophical Organization. It is an academic Journal. That means that articles, before they are accepted, are refereed by several readers for, among other things, their standard of scholarship. By standard of scholarship, I mean that the information presented by writers is backed up by proper documentation. That does not necessarily mean that opinions offered by these writers are correct. Different scholars can draw different conclusions from the same evidence. Occasionally this Journal publishes scholarly articles that are directly hostile to one or another brand of Theosophy. We also have scholars debating with other scholars. In the case of Dr. Godwin, whom you quoted, you must keep in mind that he is one of those scholars who, rightly or wrongly, has always displayed a hostile attitude towards H.P.B.. It helps to keep these things in mind when quoting from TH. As far as H.P.B., making mistakes, however, she said this herself on many occasions. Can you quote any student of H.P.B. who has ever said otherwise? If you want an example where H.P.B. is considered wrong--her definition of Devachan (which she repeated many times) is wrong according to every major scholar in the field of Buddhism. By the way, does AAB define Devachan the same way as H.P.B.? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 09:22:02 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: H.P.B. and THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY I would change one word in JHE's posting. J. Godwin has NEVER shown a hostile attitude toward HPB. His Arktos calls her the most fecund source of ideas on his subject (polar myths) and his forthcoming The Theosophical Enlightenment treats her as the culmination or climax of 200 years of esotericism in the English-speaking world. The only way he could be considered hostile is if you define everyone who approaches HPB from a perspective other than that of a true believer as hostile. Even though I've been a Theosophist for 15 years, this category would have to include me too. So let's distinguish clearly between a critical attitude, which we all should have and which HPB encourages, versus hostility. Marion Meade and Peter Washington are far less sympathetic to HPB than Godwin, but even so I wouldn't regard them as consistently hostile-- just lacking in understanding and therefore inclined to underestimate HPB. Probably the most hostile person to write about HPB was Richard Hodgson. His personal antipathy toward her poisoned his mind to the extent that he was unable to treat her fairly. With Meade or Washington, this isn't really the case. Their judgment isn't hurt by negative emotions, but rather by a series of assumptions-- like the nonexistence of the Masters-- that act as blinders, keeping them from seeing the truth. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 17:30:58 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: AAB/HPB > Yes I carry THE LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS OF WISDOM. Let me > know if you want me to send you a set. I was hoping you will say a few words about your opinion of this set, who the author is etc. I bought the Mahatma Letters to Sinnett some 2 years ago but have not ventured to read it so far. BTW, thanks for the latest package, with the bio on K and IG teachings. I am glued these days to the IG teachings whenever I get a chance. A truly wonderful effort by the authors! Also, I loved reading JTH and am looking forward to seeing the next issue. If you have any old issues/ duplicates or perhaps if there is subscription to old issues of JTH, I may be interested in having those as well. > As far as H.P.B., > making mistakes, however, she said this herself on many > occasions. Can you quote any student of H.P.B. who has ever said > otherwise? No, I cannot quote anyone who has claimed infallibility for HPB, but I'd like the same standard to be applied to all authors, esp. Bailey. Mistakes/errors are liable to be made as long as humans are doing the work of writing down the material (even if it originates at the highest levels in the purest possible form), as the channel from the plane of Buddhi or Higher Mental subplanes to the brain (via the concrete mind, and astral body) is not entirely clear in most cases. > If you want an example where H.P.B. is considered wrong--her > definition of Devachan (which she repeated many times) is wrong > according to every major scholar in the field of Buddhism. By the > way, does AAB define Devachan the same way as H.P.B.? > AAB has used 'Devachan' throughout her books, I'll look up where she has defined it and let you know. Actually, one of my favorite compilations of Bailey material is 'Death the Great Adventure' of which I keep several copies with me all the time. More later on Devachan. > I wasn't hurt, but rather distressed. I used the joke > because it was an excellent and humorous way to illustrate a very > important point. I recall that over a month ago you had > chastised me roundly for accusing AAB of lying, when I never used > the word "lie", nor did it cross my mind to accuse her of doing > such a thing. I thought we had resolved that issue. > Nevertheless, the memory of that event came to mind as I > transcribed the joke, queued by the word "lie." It was to insure > that there woud not be another misunderstanding that I prefaced a > few lines explaining the significance of the joke, before > spelling it out. Obviously I had failed to communicate, and that > is distressing. To learn from each other (to communicate better if nothing else) is the name of the game! I have profited a lot by this whole exercise. Let us move on, there is nothing to be distressed about. Forgetting the things which lie behind, let us strive towards our higher spiritual possibilities! > Actually, If I was more astute, I would have given more > attention to certain characteristic misspellings and phrases that > occur over and over again in your messages. They are a dead give- > a-way to the observant that English is your second language. But > what this means for you is that the meaning of what you read > becomes less sure, and is dependent upon your knowledge of the > subtleties of the American culture. A language expert once told > me that English is a fairly easy language to learn superficially, > but it takes about 45 years to learn it well. Can you give me examples (whenever they occur) of my characteristic misspellings? That will be great. I hope they are only because of the use of the 'English' English which is what I learnt as I was growing up in India and not due to a lack of command of the language. > As I said, the "joke" was intended to teach, not to insult > or to accuse. But this incident raises some concerns for me. > What if we were to find "substantial proof" (whatever that is) > that AAB or FB lied, or were frauds, or whatever negative things > you might think of. Would you be able to handle that revelation? > After all, you say that you "owe a great deal to AAB." Does part > of that debt to her include protecting yourself from any truths > that might tarnish or destroy your image of her? Only you can > answer that question, but it is an important one to ask yourself. > I think that it will be no problem for me to handle the truth about the Bailey or any other teachings. Like HPB, Bailey has stressed the importance of 'being unto a lamp for your own feet'. I had no problem handling the bio of K by Sloss. > Yes we have "Cellophane tape" and "Scotch tape," "copying > machine" and "xerox machine." People use these words > interchangeably, and is based upon what is called "brand > familiarity." For TSD and the SD, I think the issue is > different. In my 30 years experience, I don't recall hearing > anyone using those two phrases interchangeably. The SD is a term > used in TSD, but is rarely used in conversation or in writings. > Instead of "the SD," most people use terms such as "The Ancient > Wisdom" or "Theosophical Teachings." In my experience, people > generally say something like "~The Secret Doctrine~ is an outline > of theosophical teachings." This kind of phrasing shows that > they *do* make the distinction, and change "SD" to "Theosophical > Teachings" or "Ancient Wisdom" to avoid the redundancy of a > phrase like: "~The Secret Doctrine~ is an outline of the Secret > Doctrine." If AAB did use these words interchangeably, it would > strike me as a strange idiosyncrasy. Can you find a pattern of > instances in her writings where she uses these two words > interchangeably? I have not done any research on this, but clearly we have a different perception of the significance of the use of SD and TSD by FB. On a scale of 1(least significant) to 10 (most significant) as far as its use as a factor in determining the truth or otherwise of the AAB teachings, I give it a 1. You perhaps assign it a higher weight, which is ok with me. > Yes I am familiar with this "system of gradations," and I > have to be honest with you--statements of people's occult status > is something that I take with a grain of salt. It means nothing > to me. If you were per chance to tell me that FB Bailey was now > the Maha Chohan, it would mean nothing to me. Not that I don't > understand who the Maha Chohan is; I just can't verify these > kinds of claims. Regardless of what occult status any person > claims for themselves or is claimed for them, I look at their > lives and writings with the same scrutiny if they made no claims > at all. If I find errors or ignorance in the writings of people > who claim high occult status, it just makes them look that much > more ridiculous. I ignore claims by others as far as their level of achievement on the path, but I do find the system of initiations/initiatory level useful in putting things in perspective for myself and also in discussion with others. Perhaps we should give it a try sometime. I'll try to write more on this later. > If FB were a third or fourth degree initiate, as you > suggest, then perhaps I should take your queue and have very high > expectations for the precision of his language. Since precision > in our communications is one of the things you have learned from > the AS, then you can sympathize with my problem with occult > writers who use words with different meanings interchangeably. > As for your messages, when I don't follow your logic, I always > let you know. In order to truly judge the precision of FB's expression, we need to read some of his books (e.g. Spirit of Masonry). I find Bailey's language, esp. in the books she wrote with DK almost magical. Fraternally, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 17:49:47 -0500 From: "Ronald A. Banister" <70402.2301@CompuServe.COM> Subject: CUT Address Paul, Thanks for your response on my questions about CUT. I gather from your response the CUT is based on E.C. Prophet's group. Back in the early 80's, two of her group gave a lecture at the Milwaukee lodge of the TS. I can't think of anything positive to say about that night. You mentioned CUT is based in Stanford CA. The address I have is Center for Acadimic Publication 160 N. Fairview Ave., Ste. D282 Goleta, CA 93117 Thanks again. Ron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 18:04:28 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Hostile historians Paul, Considering your position as a historian, and the way that I believe you define the term, I would agree with your assessment that Godwin is not hostile. However I am using a different criteria for classifying theosophical historians and writers. In my use of the term, I would put Godwin and Meade in the hostile category, as well as Campbell and Hodgson. I would also put Col. Olcott in this category also. "Hostile Attitude" in my use of the term then, is not simply a box to put everyone who is not a "true believer." Certainly Olcott was a "true believer" but I still consider his attitude toward H.P.B. to be hostile. My classification of hostile therefore, is based upon a personal assessment of the motivations behind the criticism, not the criticism itself. It also has nothing to do with the quality or the depth of their research. As for "blinders," that is very closely related to attitude, so I see this as an indirect factor. I could be mis-judging Godwin, but based upon his interaction with TH, and his writings, his attitude appears to me to be hostile towards H.P.B.. Further evidence may change my attitude concerning his attitude. For examples of "critical historians" I would put Gomes, Cooper, Santucci, you and myself. So I think our differences in classification is more a matter of definition. By the way, in reference to the above, I think you should be aware that as an associate editor of TH, I have never opposed the publication of anything Godwin has submitted. So I guess that doesn't make me a very good "true believer." Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 21:38:19 -0500 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Geometry Daniel. I sympathize with your desire to turn words into geometry. The only thing that comes to my mind immediately is the Gupta Vidya Model that I have been working with. I am using CorelDraw to draw the model. The basic model of our planetary chain is a circular linked chain of 12 circles representing the 12 Globes and interconnecting paths. Almost like 12 pearls on a necklace. Because I have been so close to it, I now have a good geometric feel for the whole idea of a planetary chain. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 01:15:19 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: HPB/AAB Arvind >I was hoping you will say a few words about your opinion of this >set, who the author is etc. I bought the Mahatma Letters to >Sinnett some 2 years ago but have not ventured to read it so >far. There isn't much to say. They are Mahatma letters dating from 1870 to 1910, written to a host of people in the movement at that time. Some of the recipients will be familiar to you, such as Olcott and Leadbeater, others will not be. They were compiled and annotated by C. Jinarajadasa, from the Adyar archives. The first series was originally published in 1919, and has about 47 letters. The second series was published in 1926, and has about 82 letters. From a historical standpoint they are priceless, and reveal a lot of what was going on in the Society. Personally, I think you would get a lot more out of them, if you were grounded in history first. > No, I cannot quote anyone who has claimed infallibility for > HPB, but I'd like the same standard to be applied to all > authors, esp. Bailey. Mistakes/errors are liable to be made > as long as humans are doing the work of writing down the > material (even if it originates at the highest levels in the > purest possible form), as the channel from the plane of Buddhi > or Higher Mental subplanes to the brain (via the concrete mind, > and astral body) is not entirely clear in most cases. First of all, H.P.B. denied that all of her writings were "dictated" from the Mahatmas. Probably only a small percentage of it was. Therefore I would not assume that errors in her writings are "dictation" errors. This may have been AAB's problem, as you suggest, but in H.P.B.'s case, it is pretty clear that it wasn't. >> I wasn't hurt, but rather distressed. I used the joke >> because it was an excellent and humorous way to illustrate a >> very important point. I recall that over a month ago you had >> chastised me roundly for accusing AAB of lying, when I never >> used the word "lie", nor did it cross my mind to accuse her of >> doing such a thing. I thought we had resolved that issue. >> Nevertheless, the memory of that event came to mind as I >> transcribed the joke, queued by the word "lie." It was to >> insure that there woud not be another misunderstanding that I >> prefaced a few lines explaining the significance of the joke, >> before spelling it out. Obviously I had failed to >> communicate, and that is distressing. >To learn from each other (to communicate better if nothing else) >is the name of the game! I have profited a lot by this whole >exercise. Let us move on, there is nothing to be distressed >about. Forgetting the things which lie behind, let us strive >towards our higher spiritual possibilities! I don't forget, because these are the experiences by which I learn by. I am still distressed, because I see no indication that communication on the subject was ever achieved, which is the point of communicating in the first place. It seems that the more I write about any one subject, the less is communicated. The reason why I keep returning to the same points is because your replies don't indicate to me that you understood. >Can you give me examples (whenever they occur) of my >characteristic misspellings? That will be great. I hope they >are only because of the use of the 'English' English which is >what I learnt as I was growing up in India and not due to a lack >of command of the language. Of course I can if you want, but the misspellings are symptoms, not the cause. Correcting grammar and spelling errors does not get to the central issue. The issue is not spelling and grammar, but the culture inherent in the language. "English English" is a different language from a cultural point of view. We speak American English here. The same words will have different cultural implications. Some consistent characteristic misspellings that I have noticed are: Krishnamurty should be Krishnamurti Parucker " Purucker donot " do not (or) don't >I think that it will be no problem for me to handle the truth >about the Bailey or any other teachings. Like HPB, Bailey has >stressed the importance of 'being unto a lamp for your own > feet'. I had no problem handling the bio of K by Sloss. I think the bigger issue will be the more important (as far as this dialogue is concerned) Leadbeater Biography. >I have not done any research on this, but clearly we have a >different perception of the significance of the use of SD and >TSD by FB. On a scale of 1(least significant) to 10 (most >significant) as far as its use as a factor in determining >the truth or otherwise of the AAB teachings, I give it >a 1. You perhaps assign it a higher weight, which is ok with >me. We not only have a different perception of the significance of the use of SD and TSD, but we have a different perception of what the issue is that I find significant. Once again, the issue is not that this issue determines "the truth or otherwise of the AAB teachings." The issue is to figure out what AAB and FB are saying. We have to figure out what the writers are trying to say, before we can make a comparison. If we read "cat" are we supposed to always think "dog?" Or perhaps, we are supposed to only sometimes think "dog." If we read TSD, are we supposed to understand SD? You can change your position upon what you believe AAB and FB to mean concerning SD and TSD every week from now until the next manvantara, and nothing will be solved. We need to know what was really meant. If we can't solve this relatively simple problem, what is going to happen when we get into the philosophy? Unless we can decode what they mean by the terms they use, it is a waste of time to try to make comparisons. >> Yes I am familiar with this "system of gradations," and I >> have to be honest with you--statements of people's occult >> status is something that I take with a grain of salt. It >> means nothing to me. If you were per chance to tell me that >> FB Bailey was now the Maha Chohan, it would mean nothing to >> me. Not that I don't understand who the Maha Chohan is; I >> just can't verify these kinds of claims. Regardless of what >> occult status any person claims for themselves or is claimed >> for them, I look at their lives and writings with the same >> scrutiny if they made no claims at all. If I find errors or >> ignorance in the writings of people who claim high occult >> status, it just makes them look that much more ridiculous. >I ignore claims by others as far as their level of achievement >on the path, but I do find the system of initiations/initiatory >level useful in putting things in perspective for myself and >also in discussion with others. Perhaps we should give it a try >sometime. I'll try to write more on this later. I don't follow your reply. How does it relate to mine? If you "ignore claims by others" why do you keep informing me of everyone's occult status? >In order to truly judge the precision of FB's expression, we >need to read some of his books (e.g. Spirit of Masonry). I find >Bailey's language, esp. in the books she wrote with DK almost >magical. Let's get through TCF first. That's it for tonight Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 17:15:03 -0500 From: jcoker@eis.calstate.edu (Jessica L. Coker) Subject: sources This is from Nancy. Terry Thanks for your BACK TO THE SOURCE comments. I want to add my voice to those who assess material based on its merits, not its source. Seems to me that encourages independent thinking. I did notice a possible discrepancy though so I put forth an alternate point to one of your quotes. >> Yet Master KH in another letter (dated August 22, 1888) to Colonel Henry S. Olcott again denied Sinnett's claim: "Since1885 I have not writt, nor caused to be written save thro' her[HPB's] agency, direct or remote, a letter or line to anybody in Europe or America, nor communicated orally *with*, or *thro'* any third party. >> My edition of THE MAHATMA LETTERS indicates the letters were written between 1880 and 1884. The comment would not then be inconsistent. To Ron B. Church Universal and Triumphant used to reside in Pasadena and many years ago I went to one of their meetings. It was like a Broadway production, Elizabeth Claire was channeling all the greats, the music and lights were top notch. She called on Mary Baker Eddy, Jesus, Maria Montessori, and others, to support her. I was interested and surprised to learn that Jesus is politically on the side of the Americans so the US has nothing to fear. She showed a video which was a very professional take-off on the musical Camelot, to raise money for her new HQ. It was designed to appeal to our sentimental, maudlin, and adolescent natures. I found no theosophy there. It saddens me to think she is using the name theosophy to promote her theater. Nancy. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 21:25:24 -0500 From: mike@atc.sp.Paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: sources > This is from Nancy. > Church Universal and Triumphant used to reside in Pasadena and > many years ago I went to one of their meetings. It was like a > Broadway production, ... It was > designed to appeal to our sentimental, maudlin, and adolescent > natures. > > I found no theosophy there. It saddens me to think she is > using the name theosophy to promote her theater. I used to be involved with CUT while I was in college - joining their Keepers of the Flame Fraternity and visting both Camolot in Malibu and the ranch in Montana. While there are parts of it that bother me such as the use of mantras to hold back karma, There are parts about it that do appealed to more than my 'adolescent' nature. (perhaps I don't know any better :-) The use of the mantras, envocation of Angelic forces, Violet Flame, etc. do have the ring of a seventh ray religion that is due to enter the world. However, CUT never satisfied the inner man. The Pearls of Wisdom written weekly as dictations from the various masters seemed empty. They never had the feeling that one gets in studying the Mahatma letters or the Secret Doctrine. Did Helios (the great one who uses the Sun as his body and is the overall director of the Solar System) really come to talk to us among the mountains of Montana? A friend of mine claims to have clairvoyently seen Helios arrive and give the dictation. The talk didn't impress on me. Of course, an opinion like this may be due to my own blindness and not the fault of CUT. There certainly are those in the movement who believe in it very strongly. For me, if it doesn't speak to the inner man, it doesn't have what I'm seeking. Who can say. -Mike Grenier Michael W. Grenier mike@atc.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys Govt. Systems From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 17:57:57 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: AAB/HPB Jerry H-E, Today we are celebrating the birthday of Rita (my daughter) and I will be on theos-l for only a short while. > If you want an example where H.P.B. is considered wrong--her >definition of Devachan (which she repeated many times) is wrong >according to every major scholar in the field of Buddhism. By the >way, does AAB define Devachan the same way as H.P.B.? I looked up the references to Devachan in Bailey books; they are: Definition TCF 736-737 LS 30-31 Experience EH 496-498 Goals LS 30 Nature of TCF 1108-1109 Subplane TWM 374 I hope you are familiar with the abbreviations of AAB books, in any case you can look up the references in TCF. I'll be interested to know what you find out as far as if AAB's definition is same as that of HPB or not. The teaching on Devachan can at best be a working hypothesis until we experience Devachan; it is hard to tell who is right or wrong but it is good to listen to all viewpoints. I have perhaps time enough to touch upon a couple of other things. 1.A completely dishonest person may call himself 'honest', and that will be wrong; however that does not negate the idea or the concept of honesty. Similarly the concept of initiations is hinted at by HPB in the Voice (and perhaps other places) and even though various people have claimed perhaps in error to be great initiates, it does not take away from the concept of initiation. In the AAB books, the following terminology is used: 0-1 Probationary path, Aspirants 1-3 Disciples 3-5 Initiates (4.0 = Arhat) 5+ Masters (6= Chohan) I find it very useful to consider that various writers that we have been discussing on theos-l fall at various points on this scale of evolution or initiatory path. It is possible that HPB was at 4.0, AAB at 3.2 and various others at between 1.6 to 2.4 or so. Each one of these authors was able to interpret what they 'perceived' on the level of their higher self according to their own stage of development. The point is that 'everyone is right according to their own stage of development', there is probably some errors mixed up with some accurate information in respect of all the authors that we have discussed, including HPB. AAB, Judge, Purucker, K,... You seem to be very uninterested in this subject, perhaps we can find another opportunity to discuss it further. 2.In your last message you said that I had been changing my position wrt SD v TSD all the time. I'd like to clarify my position. I have told you before that this is not a 'big deal' for me, and you have countered that it is a big deal for you. Actually, we may be shooting for different objectives as we are continuing this dialog. My objective is to learn as much as I can from this communication, and the fact that we are studying TCF is almost incidental to me. Even though I personally donot care for the distinction between SD and TSD, I have been over the course of the last several messages suggesting to you what may have been the possible explanations for the use of the terms by FB, 'to help you out', so to speak. If you want me to just give you one answer at one time on one subject and not talk about it anymore after that, that is ok from now onwards, but that was not in our original agreement. Our discussions are very loosely structured at the moment which suits me fine but if we need to define the 'terms' or a specific protocol for discussion that is ok with me as well. I'd like to add that you have not found anything wrt SD/TSD in the writing of DK or AAB (at least you were prepared to give AAB the benefit of the doubt); your concern is with FB's staements only so perhaps you can 'dismiss' his statement in the same way as you dismissed the quote from the Divine Plan by Borborka on the topic of the '7 keys'. Can I propose that we assume that TCF is the key to SD and proceed with its study? Got to go now. All the best to you, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 11:04:20 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: AAB/HPB Arvind > I looked up the references to Devachan in Bailey books; they > are: > Definition TCF 736-737 LS 30-31 > Experience EH 496-498 > Goals LS 30 > Nature of TCF 1108-1109 > Subplane TWM 374 I don't know which books LS or EH refer to, so I can't look those one up. The definition in TCF does not repeat H.P.B.'s mistake, but is not definitive enough to determine whether it demonstrates an understanding of the concept or not, but it is correct a far as it goes. I will need to see where she defines the term more precisely. > The teaching on Devachan can at best be a working hypothesis > until we experience Devachan; it is hard to tell who is > right or wrong but it is good to listen to all viewpoints. > I have perhaps time enough to touch upon a couple of other > things. My concern is whether AAB defines Devachan according to H.P.B., Buddhist tradition, Leadbeater or.... Whether or not her definition will match my experience when (or if) I get to devachan, seems to be a waste time for me to think about. I'm not pursuing this investigation to form "hypothesis," on what devachan is like, but to compare and trace ideas. > 1.A completely dishonest person may call himself 'honest', > and that will be wrong; however that does not negate the > idea or the concept of honesty. Similarly the concept of > initiations is hinted at by HPB in the Voice (and perhaps > other places) and even though various people have claimed > perhaps in error to be great initiates, it does not take > away from the concept of initiation. In the AAB books, > the following terminology is used: > 0-1 Probationary path, Aspirants > 1-3 Disciples > 3-5 Initiates (4.0 = Arhat) > 5+ Masters (6= Chohan) Once again you address the issue of honesty, when the issue was not raised. That the concept of initiation is in H.P.B.'s writings is not in dispute. Many small children believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I don't believe these children are dishonest either. I have met four different women who believe themselves to be the reincarnation of H.P.B.. One of them, in fact (A Bailey student), informed me that I was the reincarnation of Judge. I don't believe any of these women were dishonest either. H.P.B. never announced that she was of any level of initiation. I don't believe she was being dishonest. Leadbeater and Besant announced themselves to be Arhats. Leadbeater announced in 1925 that Krishnamurti was an Arhat. I also have no reason to believe that Besant and Leadbeater were dishonest. Krishnamurti renounced his position of world teacher, Leadbeater, The Order of the Star, the Theosophical Society, and his Arhatship in 1930. I don't believe he was being dishonest either. Purucker's and Blavatsky's initiation material differs from AAB's, but her terminology matches Besant and Leadbeater's. But I don't believe anyone was being dishonest here. However, in light of all the conflicting information, I think I can safely surmise that some people must be mistaken on some things. Instead of announcing that "everyone is right" in some way, I take a different approach. For instance, I will begin with the premise that four women living at the same time cannot all be the reincarnation of Blavatsky. This is the beginning of a process called "discrimination." It is a process that H.P.B. advocated, by the way. > I find it very useful to consider that various writers > that we have been discussing on theos-l fall at various > points on this scale of evolution or initiatory path. It is > possible that HPB was at 4.0, AAB at 3.2 and various others at > between 1.6 to 2.4 or so. That you believe that these people are initiates, fall on "various points on this scale of evolution," and therefore have superior knowledge, is a matter of faith. You are welcome to it. I will have no part of it. I judge these people on the merits of their writings, not the level of initiation they claim for themselves, or what is claimed for them. > Each one of these authors was able > to interpret what they 'perceived' on the level of their > higher self according to their own stage of development. The > point is that 'everyone is right according to their own stage > of development', there is probably some errors mixed up with > some accurate information in respect of all the authors that > we have discussed, including HPB. AAB, Judge, Purucker, K,... Yes. I agree--Each of these authors were able to interpret what they perceived. If their interpretations are even remotely related to reality, is another question. All of these teachings could very well have as much validity as the Easter Bunny. The only way to discern the truth is through critical examination-- discrimination--Not faith in the truth of the teachings based upon the self proclaimed level of initiation of the teacher. Yes, in a sense, `everyone is right according to their own stage of development.' Children are right when they believe in Santa Claus. Those four women were right in believing they were reincarnations of Blavatsky. HPB, AAB, WQJ, GdeP, etc. were all right. You are right. Everyone is right. That means that I am right also, in being interested in pursuing the truth, and not wasting my time proclaiming everyone is right. I don't care that everyone is right. It is not a productive position for me. I am interested in discerning truth. I am not interested in discerning that "everyone is right." > You seem to be very uninterested in this subject, perhaps > we can find another opportunity to discuss it further. No. I'm just as interested in this subject as any other. What I'm not interested in is giving credence to teachings based upon the teacher's claims of being an initiate. Following your logic, should I give less credence to H.P.B., because she did not claim to be an initiate? Of course not. > 2.In your last message you said that I had been changing my > position wrt SD v TSD all the time. I'd like to clarify my > position. I have told you before that this is not a 'big deal' > for me, and you have countered that it is a big deal for you. > Actually, we may be shooting for different objectives as we > are continuing this dialogue. My objective is to learn as much > as I can from this communication, and the fact that we are > studying TCF is almost incidental to me. I believe you are correct in saying that our objectives differ. My objective is to look at the Bailey writings and compare them to H.P.B. and perhaps also Leadbeater and Besant. In order to do this, I must be able to understand what AAB and FB mean by the terms they use. If by "dog" they mean "cat," I can accept that, if I can determine that is what they mean. My understanding of what you wrote earlier was that you were certain that AAB and FB meant "TSD" when they wrote "TSD", until I showed that this would mean that they didn't know what they were taking about. Then you switched and were certain that they meant "the SD" when they wrote "TSD." Then you became neutral on the issue, when the possibility was raised that they may have been quoting from a document that H.P.B. wrote. You say that your "objective is to learn as much as I can from this communication." Your pattern of shifting positions suggests to me that you also have other "objectives" that play an important part in how you interpret AAB's writings. This concerns me. > Even though I personally donot > care for the distinction between SD and TSD, I have been over > the course of the last several messages suggesting to you what > may have been the possible explanations for the use of the > terms by FB, 'to help you out', so to speak. If you want me to > just give you one answer at one time on one subject and not > talk about it anymore after that, that is ok from now onwards, > but that was not in our original agreement. Our discussions > are very loosely structured at the moment which suits me fine > but if we need to define the 'terms' or a specific protocol for > discussion that is ok with me as well. Our original agreement was to look at AAB's teaching and compare them. In order to look at the teachings, we have to know what she means by her terms. When she days "dog" does she mean "dog" or "cat?" When she says "TSD" does she mean "TSD" or "the SD?" I'm at a loss as to how to make this any clearer. This procedure of defining terms is a critical step in the process of making a comparison of the writings. If we are free to change the meaning of her terms anytime we feel uncomfortable with the implications of the writings, we will be doing nothing but reinterpreting them to satisfy preconceived notions. This may be OK with you, but it is not OK with me. Please tell me what you don't understand in this paragraph, that I may try to clarify it. > I'd like to add that you have not found > anything wrt SD/TSD in the writing of DK or AAB (at least > you were prepared to give AAB the benefit of the doubt); your > concern is with FB's staements only so perhaps > you can 'dismiss' his statement in the same way as > you dismissed the quote from the Divine Plan by > Borborka on the topic of the '7 keys'. Can I propose that we > assume that TCF is the key to SD and proceed with its study? No again. My concern is equally with FB and AAB, because their statements echo each other. Concerning Barborka, my dismissal of your interpretation of his statement was based upon the fact, that in using your interpretation, the second clause in his statement contradicted the first, and the whole thing became nonsense--i.e. no meaning at all. In the case of AAB's and FB's statements, either meaning does not make the sentences self contradictory or nonsensical. Both interpretations generate meaning. I realize that I am taking a more confrontative tone in this communication. My reason for doing this is so that we can finally clear these matters up and move on to other things. Obviously, my less direct tone in previous postings have failed to communicate my meanings. My second reason for taking a more direct approach is because I will be returning to school Monday with a very heavy class load, as well as teaching, so my free time will be very limited--in fact almost non existent. Because of this, I regret that I will be communicating less often, and my communications will have to be much shorter. I hope Rita had a wonderful birthday, and please extend my best wishes to her. In brotherhood and in the interest of truth, Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 09:41:22 -0500 From: HOBB@delphi.com Subject: Responding to Arvind Kumar Thanks Arvind for your comments on my article on "Back to the Source." I will try to respond to your questions and comments in several days. I just finished sending some comments to Paul J. Terry Hobbes From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 12:02:22 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Gassho v1 no2 <- now available > GASSHO > Electronic Journal of DharmaNet International > and the Global Online Sangha > > Volume 1, Number 2 ISSN 1072-2971 January/February 1994 > ====================================================================== > > Editor-in-Chief: Barry Kapke dharma@netcom.com or > Fidonet: 1:125/33.0 > Copy Editor: John Bullitt john.bullitt@metta.ci.net > Contributing Editor: Charles S. Prebish csp1@psuvm.psu.edu > Board of Advisors: Robert Aitken Roshi Amaro Bhikkhu > Carl Bielefeldt Bhikkhu Bodhi > Thubten Chodron T. Matthew Ciolek > Roger Corless Gangcen Tulku Rinpoche > Maha Ghosananda Joseph Goldstein > Joan Halifax Ayya Khema > Anne C. Klein Jack Kornfield > Jacqueline Mandell Ken McLeod > Andrew Olendzki Charles S. Prebish > Alan Senauke Thanissaro Bhikkhu > others to be announced > > ===================================================================== > GASSHO is a Buddhist newsletter, published by DharmaNet International, > P.O. Box 4951, Berkeley, CA 94704-4951, a not-for-profit organization. > ===================================================================== > > Table of Contents: > > {1} EDITORIAL: Message from the Editor > {2} NEWS: Dharamsala Goes E-mailing > {3} DHARMANET NEWS: Dharma Book Transcription Project; Electronic > Growth in 1993 > {4} LETTERS > {5} DIALOGUE: The First Precept: Reverence for Life (Thich Nhat Hanh) > {6} ARTICLE: The Greatest Gift (John Bullitt) > {7} ARTICLE: The Academic Study of Buddhism in America: A Current > Analysis (Charles S. Prebish) > {8} ARTICLE: Exploring New Approaches: The Barre Center for Buddhist > Studies (Andrew Olendzki) > {9} ARTICLE: The American Academy of Religion Annual Meeting: 1993 > {10} PRACTICE: Nothing Special (Ayya Khema) > {11} CALENDAR: January - March 1994 > {12} REVIEWS: "Fundamentalism, Anyone?" (Richard Hayes) > {13} RESOURCES: Publishers - Book, Audio, Video, Electronic > {14} SANGHA: Massachusetts Dharma Centers (USA) > {15} A PARTING THOUGHT > {16} ABOUT GASSHO > > ==================================================================== > How to Get Electronic Copies of GASSHO: > ==================================================================== > > Internet users may receive GASSHO by electronic subscription in > Mailing List format. Send an email message to: dharma@netcom.com > asking to subscribe to GASSHO. This is *not* a Listserv. > > Back issues are available by anonymous ftp to the Dharma Electronic > Files Archive at FTP.NETCOM.COM (192.100.81.100). Change directory to > /pub/dharma/Gassho/Gassho-01-jan94/ > > gass0102.zip Compressed version of GASSHO v1n2 (Jan/Feb 94) > gass0102.nws Uncompressed, full-text version of GASSHO v1n2 > gassho-01-jan94-01of02.txt Uncompressed version of GASSHO in 2 parts > gassho-01-jan94-02of02.txt Uncompressed version of GASSHO in 2 parts > readme.1st DharmaNet electronic distribution agreement > > The first edition is available in /pub/dharma/Gassho/Gassho-01-nov93/ > > If you have difficulty ftp-ing files from the Dharma Electronic Files > Archive (DEFA) at FTP.NETCOM.COM, remember that capitalization and > spelling counts. > > GASSHO is also archived at the Electronic Buddhist Archives at > coombs.anu.edu.au and is available by COOMBSQUEST gopher. > > Additionally, these files may be retrieved via "ftpmail" for those > without "anonymous ftp" capability. Send an e-mail message addressed > to "ftpmail@metta.ci.net". In the message body put "GET GASS0102.ZIP" > (current edition) or "GET GASS0101.ZIP" (first edition) or "GET > ALLFILES.LST" (list of all available files). The file will be returned > to you as uuencoded e-mail. > > Back issues are also available for dial-up download from DharmaNet > File Distribution Network (DFN) Sites listed below. To become a DFN > site, please contact Barry Kapke at BODY DHARMA ONLINE. > > Quarto Mundista BBS, Olympia WA 206-786-9629 Fidonet: 1:352/333 > I CAN! BBS, Chicago IL 312-736-7434 Fidonet: 1:115/738 > The Magic Bus, Royal Oak MI 313-544-3653 Fidonet: 1:120/418 > Santa Cruz Online, Santa Cruz CA 408-458-2528 DharmaNet: 96:105/25 > Access to Insight, Barre MA 508-433-5847 DharmaNet: 96:903/1 > Sir James BBS, Oakland CA 510-261-6863 Fidonet: 1:161/453 > BODY DHARMA ONLINE, Berkeley CA 510-836-4717 Fidonet: 1:125/33 > DangFool, Waverly Hall GA 706-582-3238 Fidonet: 1:3613/8 > Mysteria, Tujunga CA 818-353-8891 Fidonet: 1:102/943 > The Electric Fox, Memphis TN 901-327-1008 Fidonet: 1:123/10 > Converse, Raunds UK 44-933-460744 Fidonet: 2:2504/209 > DoJo, Lindfield NSW, AUSTRALIA 61-2-416-3547 Fidonet: 3:711/918 > > GASSHO may also be received through the Fidonet "filebone" by > subscribing to the file area, DN_NEWS. Note: not all filebone hubs > carry the DharmaNet File Distribution Network areas. Please see the > weekly Fidonet file, FILEBONE.NA, for more information. The DharmaNet > file areas are also available via satellite feed through Planet > Connect. > ====================================================================== > [end] > > -- > BUDDHA-L - via FidoNet node 1:125/1 > UUCP: ...!uunet!kumr!shelter!33!BUDDHA-L > INTERNET: BUDDHA-L@f33.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 16:29:24 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: New GASSHO available v1 no2 GASSHO Electronic Journal of DharmaNet International and the Global Online Sangha Volume 1, Number 2 ISSN 1072-2971 January/February 1994 ===================================================================== Editor-in-Chief: Barry Kapke dharma@netcom.com or Fidonet: 1:125/33.0 Copy Editor: John Bullitt john.bullitt@metta.ci.net Contributing Editor: Charles S. Prebish csp1@psuvm.psu.edu Board of Advisors: Robert Aitken Roshi Amaro Bhikkhu Carl Bielefeldt Bhikkhu Bodhi Thubten Chodron T. Matthew Ciolek Roger Corless Gangcen Tulku Rinpoche Maha Ghosananda Joseph Goldstein Joan Halifax Ayya Khema Anne C. Klein Jack Kornfield Jacqueline Mandell Ken McLeod Andrew Olendzki Charles S. Prebish Alan Senauke Thanissaro Bhikkhu others to be announced ====================================================================== GASSHO is a Buddhist newsletter, published by DharmaNet International, P.O. Box 4951, Berkeley, CA 94704-4951, a not-for-profit organization. ====================================================================== Table of Contents: {1} EDITORIAL: Message from the Editor {2} NEWS: Dharamsala Goes E-mailing {3} DHARMANET NEWS: Dharma Book Transcription Project; Electronic Growth in 1993 {4} LETTERS {5} DIALOGUE: The First Precept: Reverence for Life (Thich Nhat Hanh) {6} ARTICLE: The Greatest Gift (John Bullitt) {7} ARTICLE: The Academic Study of Buddhism in America: A Current Analysis (Charles S. Prebish) {8} ARTICLE: Exploring New Approaches: The Barre Center for Buddhist Studies (Andrew Olendzki) {9} ARTICLE: The American Academy of Religion Annual Meeting: 1993 {10} PRACTICE: Nothing Special (Ayya Khema) {11} CALENDAR: January - March 1994 {12} REVIEWS: "Fundamentalism, Anyone?" (Richard Hayes) {13} RESOURCES: Publishers - Book, Audio, Video, Electronic {14} SANGHA: Massachusetts Dharma Centers (USA) {15} A PARTING THOUGHT {16} ABOUT GASSHO ==================================================================== How to Get Electronic Copies of GASSHO: ==================================================================== Internet users may receive GASSHO by electronic subscription in Mailing List format. Send an email message to: dharma@netcom.com asking to subscribe to GASSHO. This is *not* a Listserv. Back issues are available by anonymous ftp to the Dharma Electronic Files Archive at FTP.NETCOM.COM (192.100.81.100). Change directory to /pub/dharma/Gassho/Gassho-01-jan94/ gass0102.zip Compressed version of GASSHO v1n2 (Jan/Feb 94) gass0102.nws Uncompressed, full-text version of GASSHO v1n2 gassho-01-jan94-01of02.txt Uncompressed version of GASSHO in 2 parts gassho-01-jan94-02of02.txt Uncompressed version of GASSHO in 2 parts readme.1st DharmaNet electronic distribution agreement The first edition is available in /pub/dharma/Gassho/Gassho-01-nov93/ If you have difficulty ftp-ing files from the Dharma Electronic Files Archive (DEFA) at FTP.NETCOM.COM, remember that capitalization and spelling counts. GASSHO is also archived at the Electronic Buddhist Archives at coombs.anu.edu.au and is available by COOMBSQUEST gopher. Additionally, these files may be retrieved via "ftpmail" for those without "anonymous ftp" capability. Send an e-mail message addressed to "ftpmail@metta.ci.net". In the message body put "GET GASS0102.ZIP" (current edition) or "GET GASS0101.ZIP" (first edition) or "GET ALLFILES.LST" (list of all available files). The file will be returned to you as uuencoded e-mail. Back issues are also available for dial-up download from DharmaNet File Distribution Network (DFN) Sites listed below. To become a DFN site, please contact Barry Kapke at BODY DHARMA ONLINE. Quarto Mundista BBS, Olympia WA 206-786-9629 Fidonet: 1:352/333 I CAN! BBS, Chicago IL 312-736-7434 Fidonet: 1:115/738 The Magic Bus, Royal Oak MI 313-544-3653 Fidonet: 1:120/418 Santa Cruz Online, Santa Cruz CA 408-458-2528 DharmaNet: 96:105/25 Access to Insight, Barre MA 508-433-5847 DharmaNet: 96:903/1 Sir James BBS, Oakland CA 510-261-6863 Fidonet: 1:161/453 BODY DHARMA ONLINE, Berkeley CA 510-836-4717 Fidonet: 1:125/33 DangFool, Waverly Hall GA 706-582-3238 Fidonet: 1:3613/8 Mysteria, Tujunga CA 818-353-8891 Fidonet: 1:102/943 The Electric Fox, Memphis TN 901-327-1008 Fidonet: 1:123/10 Converse, Raunds UK 44-933-460744 Fidonet: 2:2504/209 DoJo, Lindfield NSW, AUSTRALIA 61-2-416-3547 Fidonet: 3:711/918 GASSHO may also be received through the Fidonet "filebone" by subscribing to the file area, DN_NEWS. Note: not all filebone hubs carry the DharmaNet File Distribution Network areas. Please see the weekly Fidonet file, FILEBONE.NA, for more information. The DharmaNet file areas are also available via satellite feed through Planet Connect. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 10:54:08 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: CUT Address Hi Ron-- CUT is Church Universal and Triumphant, Prophet's outfit. Tell us more about the weird visitors. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 12:47:07 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: early races This is by Brenda. I've enjoyed all of the correspondence, but have only found a couple of quotes that may pertain to what you are discussing, separately, of course. The quotes which follow are from THE SECRET DOCTRINE (except one by Jerry H-E.) First, Egyptian symbols and a geometrical key in use. p.130 Vol II "Well acquainted as may be a scholar with the hieratic writing and hieroglyphical system of the Egyptians, he must first of all learn to sift their records. He has to assure himself, compasses and rule in hand, that the picture writing he is examining fits, to a line, certain fixed geometrical figures which are the hidden keys to such records, before he ventures on an interpretation." (If these keys were in use, I would think they would have been found ready-made, instead of requiring a compasses and ruler.) Second, who are the liars? When H.P.B. uses the term Orientalists she does not mean Orientals. She means those who have translated and sought to reveal the Eastern literature to the Western world. While there have also been Easterners who have learned English and tried to present their ideas to the public in an attempt to bring truth to the Western world, they have not often been treated equally. Here's what H.P.B. says: p. 225 Vol II "It is the Pundit who will in the long run be found more truthful and nearer to fact that the Sanskritist. Surely, it is not because the curtailing of the latter-even when proven to have been resorted to in order to fit a personal hobby-is regarded by Western public opinion as "a cautious acceptance of facts," whereas the Pundit is brutally treated in print as a liar, that everyone has to see this in the same light. An impartial observer may judge it otherwise. He may either proclaim both unscrupulous historians, or justify both, each on his respective ground, and say: Hindu Aryans wrote for their Initiates, who read truth between the lines, not for the masses. If they did mix up events and confuse Ages intentionally, it was not in view of deceiving any one, but to preserve their knowledge from the prying eye of the foreigner." . . . . . "But such existing prejudices will have to give way and disappear very soon before the light of new discoveries." Who is right: the enquirer into foreign literature or the foreign revealer of the literature? Usually the enquirer is attempting to reveal the secrets of the text to the masses, so doesn't he have an excuse either of "ignorance" or if not ignorant, excused for desiring to veil and preserve the esoteric side of the material keeping it for initiates. And the Pundit or revealer may be trying to present exoterically great truths which can only be found truthful "in the long run," or he may be trying to teach a few "initiated" English-speaking people. Regardless of this form of "justification" for each side, it is certainly possible to perceive each also as laboring under prejudice. Both the enquirer and revealer are faced primarily with the Western masses who are seeking knowledge from the East. The literary are prejudiced against the Pundit and treat his description of chronology as an unknowing and unworthy one. The Western enquirer however is only censored or "curtailed" in his investigation because the findings are inconsistent with the meanderings or "personal hobby" of someone else's search into the unknown. The pastime of historical chronology is made light of and as a rule the average Westerner is not able to verify or dispel the ignorance of the enquirer as he is unfamiliar with the Sanskrit or any other Oriental language, therefore regarding what is told "cautiously." It's like saying to a countryman, "Don't be surprised when you find a better world-view over there." This is a hard thing to admit. Prejudice does have its place. One point in favor of the quote in TSD which says a more informed disciple may be sent this century is that it DOESN'T refer to the last quarter of the century. That old saying has me in fits. It's so unfair. If you remember anything about cyclic law, remember that the time periods involved change. Jerry H-E very beautifully wrote what he believed to be the valid interpretations to what FB wrote on Jan 18, 1994 and again on Feb 1, 1994 and it follows here: "Thus, if AAB is saying that TCF is the "psychological key" to ~The Secret Doctrine,~ then, in light of the above, two possibilities of her meaning come to mind: 1. She doesn't know what she is talking about. 2. She is not referring to the seven keys at all, but is really saying that TCF is an interpretation of ~The Secret Doctrine~ from a psychological context. I already discussed this alternative in my Jan 18th message to you, and unless you have another possibility in mind, this seems to be the most feasible. But if TCF is only a psychological commentary, then this is much less profound then what most readers assume she means. As I had mentioned in my Jan. 18th message, the text of HPB's "prediction" would probably clarify things. A third possibility comes to mind, that the statement was a misprint in AAB's books that nobody ever bothered to change--, and that she was not referring to ~The Secret Doctrine~ at all, but that TCF is the psychological key to the Secret Doctrine. The only problem with this alternative, is that HPB does not have a "psychological key."" There were many thousands of students of theosophy by the time the Alice Bailey books began to circulate (60s right?). Many students like Arvind may have sought to attempt HPB's magnum opus as a result of reading of it here. Why take it out? 1. AAB talked in riddles. 2. The seven keys may change. 3. AAB's work is profound. Could the key be tested by examining whether her proposed key serves the function of a key? Does it unlock the secrets in THE SECRET DOCTRINE? 4. We all live with misprints and misinterpretations. 5. p. 517 Vol II "Therefore, we can give it only from its philosophical and intellectual planes, unlocked with three keys respectively for the last four keys of the seven that throw wide open the portals to the mysteries of Nature are in the hands of the highest Initiates, and cannot be divulged to the masses at large not in this, our century, at any rate." (I believe she's talking about the mystery of creation here.) Jerry, what does this quote mean? I thought we had all the keys. Now it looks like we can only know the key through initiation. I don't seem to have said much regarding the races, but have spent a fair amount of time rah-rahing and neglecting what I set out to do. Oh, yes, I have a great amount of material to present, but it is so overwhelming that I'd best do it in minute amounts. First, I may answer my own question to Jerry above and say that regardless of the complete nature of seven-foldness, much of what I have read points to mankind's loss of ability past the number 3 or 4. Only those who have memory of the moon chain might have knowledge of what it means to attain to the seventh stage, seventh round, even seventh race. As we are only in the fourth round, this tends to color everything that goes on, three before being familiar and easily repeatable. The three which come last are mysterious, unsolvable, subject to much perversity, and humbly attempted. How can we be fifth race when we have no knowledge of what that's supposed to mean? I can show that the first three races were amazingly in harmony, races of Gods. p. 220 Vol II "For it is the Third Race which inhabited the great Lemurian continent, that preceded the veritable and complete human races-the fourth and the fifth." Footnote p. 227 Vol II "Strictly speaking, it is only from the time of the Atlantean, brown and yellow giant Races, that one ought to speak of MAN, since it was the Fourth race only which was the first COMPLETELY HUMAN SPECIES, however much larger in size than we are now." p. 228 Vol II "The archaic commentaries explain, as the reader must remember, that, of the Host of Dhyanis, whose turn it was to incarnate as the Egos of the immortal, but, on this plane, senseless monads that some "obeyed" (the law of evolution) immediately when the men of the Third Race became physiologically and physically ready, i.e., when they had separated into sexes. These were those early conscious Beings who, now adding conscious knowledge and will to their inherent Divine purity, created by Kriyasakti the semi-Divine man, who became the seed on earth for future adepts. Those, on the other hand, who, jealous of their intellectual freedom (unfettered as it then was by the bonds of matter), said: "We can choose...we have wisdom" (See verse 24), and incarnated far later. These had their first Karmic punishment prepared for them. They got bodies (physiologically) inferior to their astral models, because their chhayas had belonged to progenitors of an inferior degree in the seven classes. As to those "Sons of Wisdom" who had "deferred" their incarnation till the Fourth Race, which was already tainted (physiologically) with sin and impurity, they produced a terrible cause, the Karmic result of which weighs on them to this day. It was produced in themselves, and they became the carriers of that seed of iniquity for aeons to come, because the bodies they had to inform had become defiled through their own procrastination. (See verses 32, 36.) This was the "Fall of the angels," because of their rebellion against Karmic Law. The "fall of man" was no fall, for he was irresponsible." p. 94 Vol II "Esoteric philosophy, however, teaches that one third of the Dhyanis i.e., the three classes of the Arupa Pitris, endowed with intelligence, which is a formless breath, composed of intellectual not elementary substances (see Harivamsa, 932) was simply doomed by the law of Karma and evolution to be reborn (or incarnated) on Earth. Some of these were Nirmanakayas, from other Manvantaras. Hence we see them, in all the Purnas, reappearing on this globe, in the third Manvantara, as Kings, Rishis and heroes (read Third Root-Race). This tenet, being too philosophical and metaphysical to be grasped by the multitudes, was, as already stated, disfigured by the priesthood for the purpose of preserving a hold over them through superstitious fear. The supposed rebels, then, were simply those who, compelled by Karmic law to drink the cup of gall to its last bitter drop, had to incarnate anew, and thus make responsible thinking entities of the astral statues projected by their inferior brethren. Some are said to have refused, because they had not in them the requisite materials i.e., an astral body since they were arupa. The refusal of others had reference to their having been Adepts and Yogis of long past preceding Manvantaras; another mystery. But, later on, as Nirmanakayas, they sacrificed themselves for the good and salvation of the Monads which were waiting for their turn, and which otherwise would have had to linger for countless ages in irresponsible, animal-like, though in appearance human, forms. It may be a parable and an allegory within an allegory. Its solution is left to the intuition of the student, if he only reads that which follows with his spiritual eye." These quotes flow, it seems, through groups 1, 2, 3, and groups 2, 3, respectively. The groups then would be: 1. The seeds of future adepts. (Obeyed. Took form after separation of the sexes. (?)) 2. Arupa - no astral body. (Were unable to obey without the projection of the chhayas by inferior beings.) 3. Adepts and Yogis of long past Manvantaras. (Since Wise, they postponed incarnation untill the fourth race.) Even though it is said the karma was great, what could it have been? Wouldn't adepts be able to take the inferior bodies and transform them into appropriate vehicles for either their own use or the use of men? p. 491 Vol II "The Zohar gives it very suggestively. When the "Holy One" (the Logos) desired to create man, he called the highest host of Angels and said to them what he wanted, but they doubted the wisdom of this desire and answered: " Man will not continue one night in his glory" for which they were burnt (annihilated?), by the "Holy" Lord. Then he called another, lower Host, and said the same. And they contradicted the "Holy One": "What is the good of Man?" they argued. Still Elohim created man, and when man sinned there came the hosts of Uzza and Azael, and twitted God: "Here is the Son of Man that thou hast made," they said. "Behold, he sinned!" Then the Holy One replied: "If you had been among them (men) you would have been worse than they." And he threw them from their exalted position in Heaven even down on the Earth; and " they were changed (into men) and sinned after the women of the earth;" (Zohar, III, 208a. ed. Zolkiew) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 16:19:02 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: THobbes comments All of the postings by Terry H. on the subject of my comments on HPB were garbled, at least for me-- please try again, Terry. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 16:33:28 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Radha and Krishna While reading Pupul Jayakar's bio of Krishnamurti recently I was started by something I hadn't noticed before. Jayakar gives an eyewitness account of a conversation from November 1979 in which K. asked Radha Burnier if she planned to run for president of the TS. When RB said she didn't know, K. said "what do you mean you don't know" and went on to say the TS was a failure, it had not fulfilled its original purpose, and that Annie Besant intended Adyar to be devoted to "the teaching" [i.e. K.'s teaching]. Jayakar notes a strange intensity filled the room, and K. asked Radha "Can we do something about it?" Jayakar later asked K. about the inconsistency between RB being a stalwart supporter of the Krishnamurti Foundation and running for the TS presidency and his response was basically that he was all for Radha running. In fact, the narrative gives an overwhelming feeling that RB saw K. as a Guru and ran for PTS at his instigation. The next year, he was welcomed back with garlands of roses and visited Adyar every day he was in the area. Yet I notice in the current American Theosophist that Radha invokes the blessings of the Masters with lots of capitalized pronouns referring to them although K. denounced the cult of the Masters. And she heads the ES, which K. advised Besant to close. What gives? Does anyone have any insight into the nature of our president's adherence to Krishnamurti's teaching and how she or her admirers reconcile the disparities noted above? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 06:00:58 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: keys Brenda >p.130 Vol II "Well acquainted as may be a scholar with the >hieratic writing and hieroglyphical system of the Egyptians, he >must first of all learn to sift their records. He has to assure >himself, compasses and rule in hand, that the picture writing he >is examining fits, to a line, certain fixed geometrical figures >which are the hidden keys to such records, before he ventures on >an interpretation." (If these keys were in use, I would think >they would have been found ready-made, instead of requiring a >compasses and ruler.) H.P.B. is suggesting here that there are certain geometrical figures in the hieroglyphics that are keys to the method for interpreting the writing. She is not referring to the seven keys presented in TSD, but to indicators of esoteric interpretation of the writing. You will find elsewhere in TSD a discussion concerning the removal of the keys from the Vedas. It is the same kind of thing. Ask Eldon about the "key words" removed from Purucker's E.S. writings before there publication. This may be a more modern example of the same thing again. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has made a study in the interpretation of hieroglyphics if they have noted the use of such "keys." >There were many thousands of students of theosophy by the time >the Alice Bailey books began to circulate (60s right?). Many >students like Arvind may have sought to attempt HPB's magnum >opus as a result of reading of it here. Why take it out? >1. AAB talked in riddles. >2. The seven keys may change. >3. AAB's work is profound. Could the key be tested by >examining whether her proposed key serves the function of a key? >Does it unlock the secrets in THE SECRET DOCTRINE? >4. We all live with misprints and misinterpretations. >5. p. 517 Vol II "Therefore, we can give it only from its >philosophical and intellectual planes, unlocked with three keys >respectively for the last four keys of the seven that throw wide >open the portals to the mysteries of Nature are in the hands of >the highest Initiates, and cannot be divulged to the masses at >large not in this, our century, at any rate." (I believe she's >talking about the mystery of creation here.) >Jerry, what does this quote mean? I thought we had all the keys. >Now it looks like we can only know the key through initiation. Regarding "5": She uses the phrase "last four of the seven" so she is still talking about the same seven keys that she presents in TSD. But H.P.B. never claimed to give the last word on any of the keys, even for the physical. Certainly the four higher keys that she mentions here are even a greater mystery. As for the "mysteries of nature," these mysteries are to be unlocked using all seven of the keys, not just one or even four. Same for the mysteries of creation. Therefore, we have all seven keys as H.P.B. presents them in TSD, but she doesn't tell us everything about them. She leaves much for us to discover for ourselves. Regarding "3": Whether or not AAB's "psychological key" "serves the function of a key," is one of the things I hope we will discover. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 16:36:08 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Psychological Types This week's New York Times Book Review includes a review of a new psychology book which presents a post-modern personality theory that is relevant to my comments last week. That is, why do some Theosophists need to make HPB into an authority figure who is completely consistent and never misleads? Here's a quote from the review-- the book is called The Protean Self: ..The upbeat message of Dr. [Robert Jay] Lifton's book is that a "protean self" is a source of strength and value and ought to be accepted as a new psychological ideal. A person with a protean self is a "willful eclectic" who draws strength from the variety and disorderliness of historical change and upheaval. His or her integrity is defined by an ability to stay on the move between partial, incomplete and irreconcilable realities. According to Dr. Lifton, life is not a straight line. Instead, it is, and ought to be, experienced as a collage. The "protean self" is not alone in the contemporary world. It has, as an alter ego, the "fundamentalist self," which is the second character type... a consistency freak who avoids psychological fragmentation by defending the world against evil, embracing a totalizing world view and looking forward to the end of time. Unlike the "protean self," the "fundamentalist self" responds to the mix and complexity of existence with a sense of gnostic revulsion so profound that even a nuclear war seems welcome. The idea of apocalyptic conflagration is endowed with a divine purpose: bringing the world to an end is a way to clean the messy slate. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 23:34:42 -0500 From: HOBB@delphi.com Subject: copy sent at your request to solve problem! (note the comment from in brackets [] -- jem) [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] -->To Paul Johnson -->from Terry Hobbes You write: >One could hardly write as voluminously as HPB on so many >complex subjects without some errors. She >freely admitted that her work contained mistakes and never >tried to present herself as the absolute authority which many >would make of her today. I believe most serious students of HPB's writings would agree with your statements but some of us do consider her an "authority", no not an absolute one, but as someone who knows what she is talking about. You also write: >While Terry's historical perspective is helpful in placing >post)HPB developments in context, why stop there? Putting HPB >in context of the sources from whom she learned takes us back a >step further. Why accept hers as the final word on Kabbalah, >Masonry, Vedanta, etc. when each of those traditions supplies >us with voluminous sources which existed long prior to her? I >suggest that going back to the Source be understood as a >direction, not a goal. Yes, there is truth to what you say. And the serious student of HPB's writings will want to go back to these sources and try to gain some knowledge and insight about these numerous sources. For example, in *The Secret Doctrine* HPB mentions and quotes from Zoroastrian sources and teachings. Two good books on Zoroastriasm are written by Mary Boyce: *Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism* (1984) and *Zoroastrians, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (1979). We could multiply examples in other religious,occult and mystical traditions. Yet do you accept the Masters and *their* occult knowledge as one of her Sources? In *The Secret Doctrine* she says: "The sole advantage which the writer has over her predecessors, is that she need not resort to personal speculations and theories. For this work is a partial statement of what she herself has been taught by more advanced students. . . . ." Volume I, p. vii And further on in the same volume, pp. 272)273: "The Secret Doctrine is the accumulated Wisdom of the Ages. . . . . . the system in question is no fancy of one or several isolated individuals....it is the uninterrupted record covering thousands of generations of Seers whose respective experiences were made to test and to verify the traditions passed orally by one early race to another, of the teachings of higher and exalted being, who watched over the childhood of Humanity. . . .for long ages, the `Wise Men" of the Fifth Race. . . had passed their lives *in learning* . . .by checking, testing, and verifying in every department of nature the traditions of old by the independent visions of great adepts; i.e., men who have developed and perfected their physical, mental, psychic, and spiritual organisations to the utmost posssible degree No vision of one adept was accepted till it was checked and confirmed by the visions ) ) ) so obtained as to stand as independent ) ) ) of other adepts, and by centuries of experiences." HPB repeats this basic theme in numerous places throughout her writings. Two of these sages of the Orient, two of these adepts were known by their initiatory names of Koot Hoomi and Morya. It is from these adepts that she transmits "The Secret Doctrine" teachings. Here is what these adepts say in *The Mahatma Letters*: "We tell you what we know, *for we are made to learn it through personal experience*. . . ." p. 128, 3rd ed "The recognition of the higher phases of man's being on this planet is not to be attained by mere acquirement of knowledge. Volumes of the most perfectly constructed information cannot reveal to man life in the higher regions. One has to get a knowledge of spiritual facts by personal experience and from actual observation. . . ." p. 64 "Life. . . ., the greatest problem within the ken of human conception, is a mystery that the greatest of your men of Science will never solve. In order to be correctly comprehended, it has to be studied in the entire series o fits manifestations, otherwise it can never be, not only fathomed, but even comprehended in its easiest form ) ) ) life, as a state of *being* on this earth. It can never be grasped so long as it is studied separately and apart from universal life. To solve the great problem one has to become an occultist; to analyze and experience with it personally in all its phases, as life on earth, life beyond the limit of physical death, mineral, vegetable, animal and spiritual life; life in conjunction with concrete matter as well a life present in the imponderable atom." p. 155 Speaking of the "Tree of Knowledge", K.H. writes: "This `tree' is in our safe)keeping, entrusted to us by the Dhyan Chohans, the protectors of our Race and the Trustees for those that are coming. Try to understand the allegory . . . . .Every race had its adepts; and with every new race, we are allowed to give them out as much of our knowledge as the men of that race deserve" p. 154 This whole passage deserves to be carefully studied. ". . . these subjects (metaphysical) are only partly for understanding. A higher faculty belonging to the higher life must see, and it is truly impossible to force it upon one's understanding ) ) ) merely in words. One must see with his spiritual eye, hear with is Dharmakayic ear, feel with the sensation of his *Ashta)vijnana* (spiritual `I'), before he can comprehend this doctrine fully . . . ." p. 197. "Yourself [AP Sinnett} and Mr. Hume have received now more information about the A[rhat?].E[soteric?]. Philosophy than was ever given out to *non)initiates* within my knowledge." p. 112 K.H. and M and other members of the Occult Fraternity have this knowledge (personal, immediate, and transcendental, etc.) Do you believe she transmitted Knowledge from that Source? Many of the Radhasomai Masters and followers consider the Masters of HPB to be "lower" Masters, whereas the Radhasomai masters are much more spiritually developed. See the section on "Theosophy" in *The Path of the Masters* by Julian Johnson, published in the 1930s. Julian Johnson became a disciple of Sawan Singh, the great Beas master. Even the Beas Master the late Charan Singh, who died only several years ago, considered "hidden Masters" of Theosophy of little use, especially when you could have the "Lord" incarnated in flesh and blood in a Radhamsomai Master such as he himself. You write: >She [HPB] admits straightforwardly that her knowledge of the >subject [Tibetan Buddhism] is quite limited ) ) as is shown by her >use of the term dugpa to identify Black magicians. Any Tibetan >will tell you that the Gelugpa regard the redhat (unreformed) >Buddhists with respect and by no means think they are some evil >brotherhood >with which the good guys are engaged in some cosmic struggle. >Another example is her reading of the doctrine of the three kayas, >which again any scholar of Tibetan Buddhism will regard as >misleading ) ) suggesting that the three vestures are somehow >distinct alternative when in fact they are simultaneous realities. I called one of my theosophical correspondents and he in turn called David Reigle, a theosophist who is knowledgeable on the Sanskrit and Tibetan languages as well as Hindu and Buddhist subjects. David was asked for his input on the "dugpa" term, on your comment about the "Gelugpa regard for the Redhats" and your comment on the 3 Kayas. David Reigle basically said (Please Note: I am paraphrasing his comments and adding my 2 cents worth. If anyone has questions they can address them to David Reigle. I don't know his address but I believe Jerry H)E has it!) 1. When Paul Johnson writes "any scholar of Tibetan Buddhism will regard" HPB's "reading of the doctrine of the three Kayas" as "misleading", Johnson is implying that there is total agreement among all Buddhist scholars on this subject of the kayas. This is not true. There are conflicting interpretations of the "kaya doctrine" by various scholars. Even in the Buddhist texts, there are various views concerning the kayas. At lease one of the texts lists 4 kayas instead of the three traditional ones. One Vietnamese scholar of Buddhism told Reigle that HPB's comments on the 3 kayas (as given in her notes to *The Voice of the Silence* are quite insightful and (in his expert opinion) impressive. 2. When Paul Johnson writes "any Tibetan will tell you that the Gelugpa regard the redhat (unreformed) Buddhists with respect . . . ." this statement in itself may be somewhat misleading. It is true that the current Dalai Lama has worked over the years to start what we might call a "fraternization' movement with the other non*Gelugpa sects of Tibetan Buddhism, but if we look at the historical record of the last several centuries we will find that the Gelugpas had general, widespread "prejudice" and even rivalry *against* the Redhats. In a recently published history of Tibet in English by a Tibetan scholar, it is documented that there was actual warfare between the Red Hats and the Gelugpas in the 15th and 16th centuries. The Redhat branch of the Karma)pa struggled for power with the gelugpas. If Paul Johnson had interviewed Gelugpa monks in the 1870s, he might have found the monks somewhat "negative" or "prejudical" against the Redhats. All of this should be taken into consideration when assessing what HPB said about the Redhats. 3. Now to the word "dugpa" ))it is true that "dugpa" ('Brug)pa) technically refers to a sub)sect of the Bka')brgyud)pa (Kagyurpa) school of Tibetan Buddhism. The Dugpa sect over the centuries became the main school of T. Buddhism in Bhutan. This Redhat school cannot be considered as a school of Black Magicians. But HPB writes in (*Collected Writings* Volume 4, p. 9): "The term `Dug)pa' in Tibet [among the Gelugpas?] is deprecatory. They themselves pronounce it `Dog)pa' from the root `to bind' (religious binders to the old faith); while the paramount sect ) ) ) the Gelukpas (yellow caps) ))) and the people, use the word in the sense of Dug)pa *mischief*)makers, *sorcerers*. The Bhutanese are generally called Dug)pa throughout Tibet and even in some parts of Northern India." In *The Theosophical Glossary* HPB gives more information: "From that century [14th] century, however, and after the rigid laws imposed upon the *Gelukpas* (yellow caps) and the general reform and purification of Buddhism (or Lamaism), the Dugpas have given themselves over more than ever to sorcery, immorality and drunkenness. Since then the word *Dugpa* has become a synonym of "sorcerer," "adept of black magic", and everything vile. There are few, if any, Dugpas in Eastern Tibet, but they congregate in Bhutan, Sikkim, and the borderlands generally." And in an article on "Elementals", see HPB's *Theosophical Articles*, volume II, p. 146, HPB says: "This class of spirits are called the `terrestrial,' or `earthly elementaries, in contradistinction to the other classes. . . .But there is another and still more dangerous class. In the East, they are known as the `Brothers of the Shadow,' living men possessed by the earth-bound elementaries; at times - their *masters* but ever in the long run falling victims to these terrible beings. In Sikkim and Tibet they are called Dug-pas (red-caps), in contradistinction to the Geluk)pas (Yellow)caps), to which latter most of the adepts belong. And here we must beg the reader not to misunderstand us. For though the whole of Butan and Sikkim belongs to the old religions of the Bhons, now known generally as the Dug*pas, we do not mean to have it understood that the whole of the population is possessed, *en masse*, or that they are all sorcerers. Among them are found as good men as anywhere else, and we speak above only of the *elite* of their Lamaseries, of a nucleus of priests, "devil)dancers," and fetish worshippers, whose dreadful and mysterious rites are utterly unknown to the greater part of the population. Thus there are two classes of these terrible `Brothers of the Shadow' ) ) ) the *living* and the *dead*. . . ." Notice that HPB says "the *elite* of their Lamaseries", "a nucleus of priests" which means to me that even most of the priesthood of these specific Redhat Lamaseries are not to be considered Black Magicians. Paul, do you believe in the existence of Black Magicians, brothers of the Shawdow? The student of HPB's works needs to carefully study everything HPB says about Black Magicians and Brothers of the Shadow before jumping to conclusions. One needs to study about "lost souls", elementaries, Avitchi, the Planet of Death, elementals such as dakinis, Mamo Chohans and other rather "unpleasant" subjects that New Age students would never dream even existed! So even according to HPB, if you read her carefully, she seems to say that the word "dugpa" has several meanings. For those interested in studying relevant matter to what HPB writes about on Black Magic, Tantric magic and other "gruesome" subjects, the student should read Benjamin Walker's 1974 work *Beyond the Body: The Human Double and the Astral Plane, pp. 141)142; also consult Teachings of Tibetan Yoga, translated and annotated by Garma C.C. Chang. A Kagyu meditation manual called *The Six Yogas of Naropa* is translated in this book. Also Francis King's *Sexuality, Magic and Perversion*. Also Agehananda Bharati's book on the Hindu Tantras Items 1 and 2 above were based on David Reigle's comments and they were paraphrased and added to. I hope I did justice to David's views. Please write him for more details if interested. Terry Hobbes From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:32:14 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Terry Hobbes's Questions and Comments There's no disagreement between us on HPB's "knowing what she is talking about" generally; she was the most widely traveled and in many ways the best informed writer on comparative religion of her time. But that doesn't imply that in every specific area she is always reliable. You ask "Do you accept the Masters and their occult knowledge as one of her Sources?" I can only respond-- as you may have anticipated-- with "yes and no." In The Masters Revealed I identify 32 historical figures from whom HPB learned and who acted as her sponsors in various ways. Their knowledge was immense; most of them were recognized authorities in spiritual traditions-- Masonic, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Kabbalistic, etc. BUT to refer to them as "Sources" rather than "sources" suggests a worshipful attitude, which I personally feel is inappropriate. To each his own-- I loathe the capitalization of words to indicate holiness of Those To Whom They Refer-- it's such an affectation. And to accept the Masters as "one" of her sources makes little sense-- I accept them as MANY of her sources-- whose knowledge was considerably more diverse and less unanimous than has been believed. You say, after extensive quotes, "K.H. and M. and other members of the Occult Fraternity have this knowledge...Do you believe she transmitted Knowledge from that Source?" Again, yes and no. I probably don't believe ANYTHING in the sense you are meaning. I know some things, don't know others, have hunches based on more or less evidence in the huge gray area in between-- and suspend judgment accordingly. My tolerance of ambiguity has grown as I have entered middle age. Here's my reading of the evidence related to your question: There are many occult fraternities; HPB was more knowledgable about more of them than any one of her time and possibly ever since. BUT there is no big Occult Fraternity to which her Sikh, Sufi, Hindu, Buddhist, Masonic etc. Masters all belonged and which preserved a unitary knowledge shared across boundaries of language, culture, and space. Or rather, there is no historical evidence for such an entity, at least on the plane of mundane reality; maybe as a metahistorical Platonic ideal it "exists." As a concept it has the same slipperiness as the Collective Unconscious. Postulating a unitary reality behind appearances of multiplicity and diversity has a certain intuitive appeal. But as a way of explaining history, it tends to confuse issues and distract attention from the kinds of inquiry which are productive. So-- I believe that she transmitted knowledges from sources at the level of historical reality; as for Knowledge from a Source-- that's a metaphysical, metahistorical question that leads into a labyrinth of confusion when asked in historical context. At some level I suppose it's true BUT if there's an "uninterrupted record covering thousands of generations of Seers" we should look for it somewhere other than this plane. That implies taking the claims of HPB and the Masters as referring to something metahistorical rather than historical. As for Tibetan doctrines, my generalizations were apparently hasty-- but were based on evidence. Two friends, one a Scottish Gelugpa initiate, the other an American Kargyutpa, both of whom know a lot about HPB, presented the same two points to me (re dugpas and kayas). Both were emphatic that HPB was way off base from the general understanding among Tibetan Buddhists. Even if the Gelugpa of 1880 were less fraternal to the redhats than they are now, they never saw them as Brothers of the Shadow in the modern Theosophical sense. The Scot said he had searched widely for such a concept in Asian religious literature and found it-- among Central Asian Sufis who believe in something they call the Brotherhood of Satan. Again, when you ask "do you believe in the existence of Black Magicians, brothers of the Shadow?" I have to say simultaneously yes, no and don't know. Yes, there are destructive humans with inexplicable power over others; no, I don't think they all belong the the same conspiracy; and I don't know in what sense there may be some reservoir of evil from which they draw energy-- or how conscious they are of doing so. I nominate V. Zhirinovsky as some kind of Brother of the Shadow. There's plenty of room for further exploration of belief/ disbelief/ suspended judgment on the question of HPB's Masters. I hope to stimulate it with the book and thank you for responding to my posting with such interest. Namaste Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 12:36:35 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Terry Hobbes's Questions and Comments There's no disagreement between us on HPB's "knowing what she is talking about" generally; she was the most widely traveled and in many ways the best informed writer on comparative religion of her time. But that doesn't imply that in every specific area she is always reliable. You ask "Do you accept the Masters and their occult knowledge as one of her Sources?" I can only respond-- as you may have anticipated-- with "yes and no." In The Masters Revealed I identify 32 historical figures from whom HPB learned and who acted as her sponsors in various ways. Their knowledge was immense; most of them were recognized authorities in spiritual traditions-- Masonic, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Kabbalistic, etc. BUT to refer to them as "Sources" rather than "sources" suggests a worshipful attitude, which I personally feel is inappropriate. To each his own-- I loathe the capitalization of words to indicate holiness of Those To Whom They Refer-- it's such an affectation. And to accept the Masters as "one" of her sources makes little sense-- I accept them as MANY of her sources-- whose knowledge was considerably more diverse and less unanimous than has been believed. You say, after extensive quotes, "K.H. and M. and other members of the Occult Fraternity have this knowledge...Do you believe she transmitted Knowledge from that Source?" Again, yes and no. I probably don't believe ANYTHING in the sense you are meaning. I know some things, don't know others, have hunches based on more or less evidence in the huge gray area in between-- and suspend judgment accordingly. My tolerance of ambiguity has grown as I have entered middle age. Here's my reading of the evidence related to your question: There are many occult fraternities; HPB was more knowledgable about more of them than any one of her time and possibly ever since. BUT there is no big Occult Fraternity to which her Sikh, Sufi, Hindu, Buddhist, Masonic etc. Masters all belonged and which preserved a unitary knowledge shared across boundaries of language, culture, and space. Or rather, there is no historical evidence for such an entity, at least on the plane of mundane reality; maybe as a metahistorical Platonic ideal it "exists." As a concept it has the same slipperiness as the Collective Unconscious. Postulating a unitary reality behind appearances of multiplicity and diversity has a certain intuitive appeal. But as a way of explaining history, it tends to confuse issues and distract attention from the kinds of inquiry which are productive. So-- I believe that she transmitted knowledges from sources at the level of historical reality; as for Knowledge from a Source-- that's a metaphysical, metahistorical question that leads into a labyrinth of confusion when asked in historical context. At some level I suppose it's true BUT if there's an "uninterrupted record covering thousands of generations of Seers" we should look for it somewhere other than this plane. That implies taking the claims of HPB and the Masters as referring to something metahistorical rather than historical. As for Tibetan doctrines, my generalizations were apparently hasty-- but were based on evidence. Two friends, one a Scottish Gelugpa initiate, the other an American Kargyutpa, both of whom know a lot about HPB, presented the same two points to me (re dugpas and kayas). Both were emphatic that HPB was way off base from the general understanding among Tibetan Buddhists. Even if the Gelugpa of 1880 were less fraternal to the redhats than they are now, they never saw them as Brothers of the Shadow in the modern Theosophical sense. The Scot said he had searched widely for such a concept in Asian religious literature and found it-- among Central Asian Sufis who believe in something they call the Brotherhood of Satan. Again, when you ask "do you believe in the existence of Black Magicians, brothers of the Shadow?" I have to say simultaneously yes, no and don't know. Yes, there are destructive humans with inexplicable power over others; no, I don't think they all belong the the same conspiracy; and I don't know in what sense there may be some reservoir of evil from which they draw energy-- or how conscious they are of doing so. I nominate V. Zhirinovsky as some kind of Brother of the Shadow. There's plenty of room for further exploration of belief/ disbelief/ suspended judgment on the question of HPB's Masters. I hope to stimulate it with the book and thank you for responding to my posting with such interest. Namaste Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 21:36:52 -0800 (PST) From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) To: theos-l@vnet.net This is by Brenda. Jerry H-E: This is what I could picture happening during life in Egypt where I was speaking about a metal or fashioned instrument that might be useful in recognizing a key. The quote says compasses and ruler. You suggest it might have to be used for several hieroglyphic symbols which is fine. Please remember this is just my imagination working. I really don't know how advanced communication was during those days. I imagined that several places throughout the city there were stone tablets on which members of the community could post notices or messages. In fact, a notice might only be 5 or 6 hieroglyphs long, if the point could come across that easily. People walking by these tablets might stop to see if there's anything they should know about. If they are a tailor and they suspect that one of the other tailors (?) might be trying to post a memo, they might see the symbol which designated their craft, say a circle with a garment or cloak around it. Well, other memo writers might also use this symbol, but in a message identified with the priestcraft, for instance. In order that the tailors did not mistake the memos directed to their segment of the population, they might derive an identifying symbol which could measure exactly, and no hand-chiselled symbol could approximate it in its accuracy. (No other group would even have a need to create or measure this particular symbol with ruler and compasses as it wouldn't be their particular code hieroglyph or key.) For ease in measuring and producing a symbol of this nature, a tailor might carry an iron replica that could be hammered in place on the tablet or held upon it to verify the accuracy of a written symbol. This is what I was thinking when I made the off handed remark mentioning a physical replica. I wasn't even referring to esoteric writing. Does anyone know if anything of this nature has been found? Sorry, if this seems vain. Paul: THE SECRET DOCTRINE does give the same idea about "worshipping" our sources. It follows: Vol II, p. 538 "What, then, have other nations, who call themselves Aryans, to do with this Semitic deity, the tribal god of Israel? Astronomically, the "Most High" is the Sun, and the "Lord" is one of his seven planets, whether it be Iao, the genius of the moon, or IldaBaoth-Jehovah, that of Saturn, according to Origen and the Egyptian Gnostics." Let the "Angel Gabriel," the "Lord" of Iran, watch over his people; and Michael-Jehovah, over his Hebrews. These are not the gods of other nations, nor were they ever those of Jesus. As each Persian Dev is chained to his planet (see Origen's Copy of the Chart), so each Hindu Deva (a " Lord ") has its allotted portion, a world, a planet, a nation or a race. Plurality of worlds implies plurality of gods. We believe in the former, and may recognize, but will never worship, the latter. (Vide Part III., "On Chains of Worlds and their Plurality.") It has been repeatedly stated in this work that every religious and philosophical symbol had seven meanings attached to it, each pertaining to its legitimate plane of thought, i.e., either purely metaphysical or astronomical; psychic or physiological, etc., etc. These seven meanings and their applications are hard enough to learn when taken by themselves; but the interpretation and the right comprehension of them become tenfold more puzzling, when, instead of being correlated, or made to flow consecutively out of and to follow each other, each, or any one of these meanings is accepted as the one and sole explanation of the whole symbolical idea." Key-Lovers: H.P.B. then shows two keys out of seven as described by two Kabalist scholars. Here is the verse which they reveal. p. 538 "Moses beseeches the Lord to show him his "glory." The scholar explains the answer. "Thou canst not see my face..." But I will show you my back "i.e., my visible universe, my lower manifestations, but as a man still in the flesh, thou canst not see my invisible nature." This is the cosmo-metaphysical interpretation. Face symbolizes glory which is too deep to be revealed, even to Moses. The numerical meaning is found by adding the letters of the name Moses and the name Jehovah. Moses equals 345 and Jehovah (or "I am that I am.") equals 543. In this way, Jehovah has shown him his behind (or back). It also has an astronomical side-meaning since when the two added together equal 888 - the division of the 24 hours of the days and a number check to preserve the natural measure of days. 888 also stands for the "Gnostic Cabbalistic value of the name Christ, who was Jehoshua or Joshua." The text on p. 539 says that "In other uses of the numbers, they saw each other face to face." I'm hoping some of the material I've gathered will fit nicely here, and flow into some important ideas. You can be the judge. Vol II p. 604 "Because all the ancient Cosmologies the oldest Cosmographies of the two most ancient people of the Fifth Root Race, the Hindu Aryans and the Egyptians, adding to them the early Chinese races (the remnants of the Fourth or Atlantean Race) based the whole of their mysteries on number 10: the higher triangle standing for the invisible and metaphysical world, the lower three and four, or the Septenate, for the physical realm. It is not the Jewish Bible that brought number seven into prominence. Hesiod used the words "The seventh is the sacred day," before the Sabbath of "Moses" was ever heard of. The use of number seven was never confined to any one nation. This is well testified by the seven vases in the temple of the Sun, near the ruins of Babian in Upper Egypt; the seven fires burning continually for ages before the altars of Mithra; the seven holy fanes of the Arabians; the seven peninsulas, the seven islands, seven seas, mountains, and rivers of India; and of the Zohar (See Ibn Gebirol); the Jewish Sephiroth of the Seven splendours; the seven Gothic deities, the seven worlds of the Chaldeans and their seven Spirits; the seven constellations mentioned by Hesiod and Homer; and all the interminable sevens which the Orientalists find in every MS. they discover." I'm only using these quotes here as an introduction to the value of the land apportioned to each race. THE SECRET DOCTRINE lists the North Pole - First Race, Northern Asia or Hyperborea - Second Race, Lemuria - Third Race, Atlantis - Fourth Race, ? - Fifth Race. Does anyone know the name for the fifth race land? p. 401-402 "This shows that Northern Asia is as old as the Second Race. One may even say that Asia is contemporary with man, since from the very beginnings of human life its root-continent, so to speak, already existed; that part of the world now known as Asia being only cut off from it in a later age, and divided by the glacial waters. If, then, the teaching is understood correctly, the first continent which came into existence capped over the whole North Pole like one unbroken crust, and remains so to this day, beyond that inland sea which seemed like an unreachable mirage to the few arctic travellers who perceived it. During the Second Race more land emerged from under the waters as a continuation of the "head" from the neck. Beginning on both hemispheres, on the line above the most northern part of Spitzbergen on Mercator's Projection, on our side, it may have included, on the American side, the localities that are now occupied by Baffin Bay and the neighbouring islands and promontories. There it hardly reached, southward, the 70th degree of latitude; here it formed the horseshoe continent of which the Commentary speaks; of the two ends of which, one included Greenland with a prolongation which crossed the t degree a little southwest, and the other Kamschatka, the two ends being united by what is now the northern fringe of the coasts of Eastern and Western Siberia. This broke asunder and disappeared. In the early part of the Third Race Lemuria was formed (Vide supra). When it was destroyed in its turn, Atlantis appeared." Vol II p. 404-5 "We believe that each of these is not strictly a continent in the modern sense of the word, but that each name, from Jambu down to Pushkara,(1)* refers to the geographical names given (i.) to the dry lands covering the face of the whole earth during the period of a Root-Race, in general; and (ii.) to what remained of these after a geological (race) Pralaya as "Jambu," for instance: and (iii.) to those localities which will enter, after the future cataclysms, into the formation of new universal "continents," peninsulas, or dvipas(2)* each continent being, in one sense, a greater or smaller region of dry land surrounded with water. Thus, that whatever " jumble " the nomenclature of these may represent to the profane, there is none, in fact, to him who has the key." Some footnotes to this on p. 404. (1)*"Jambu, Plaksha, Salmala, Kusa, Krauncha, Saka, and Pushkara." (2)*"Such as Saka and Pushkara, for instance, which do not yet exist, but into which will enter such lands as some portions of Amerlca, of Africa, and Central Asia, with the Gobi region. Let us bear in mind that Upadvipas means "root" islands, or the dry land in general." Since it might be of interest here, I'd like to include the quote that I found in regard to the relations of the planets with the Races. p. 765-6 "The fact that the Atlantes claimed Ouranos for their first king, and that Plato commences his story of Atlantis by the division of the great continent by Neptune, the grandson of Ouranos, shows that there were continents and kings before Atlantis. For Neptune, to whose lot that continent fell, finds on a small island only one human couple made of clay (i.e., the first physical human man, whose origin began with the last sub-races of the Third Root-Race). It is their daughter Clito that the god marries, and it is his eldest son Atlas who receives for his part the mountain and the continent which was called by his name. Now all the gods of Olympus, as well as those of the Hindu Pantheon and the Rishis, were the septiform personations (1) of the noumena of the intelligent Powers of nature; (2) of Cosmic Forces; (3) of celestial bodies; (4) of gods or Dhyan Chohans; (5) of psychic and spiritual powers; (6) of divine kings on earth (or the incarnations of the gods); and (7) of terrestrial heroes or men. The knowledge how to discern among these seven forms the one that is meant, belonged at all times to the Initiates, whose earliest predecessors had created this symbolical and allegorical system. Thus while Ouranos (or the host representing this celestial group) reigned and ruled over the Second Race and their (then) Continent; Kronos or Saturn governed the Lemurians; and Jupiter, Neptune and others fought in the allegory for Atlantis, which was the whole earth in the day of the Fourth Race. Poseidonis, or the (last) island of Atlantis "the third step of Idaspati" (or Vishnu) in the mystic language of the secret books lasted till about 12,000 years ago. The Atlantes of Diodorus were right in claiming that it was their country, the region surrounding Mount Atlas, where "the gods were born" i.e., "incarnated." But it was after their fourth incarnation that they became, for the first time, human Kings and rulers. Diodorus speaks of Ouranos as the first king of Atlantis, confusing, either consciously or otherwise, the continents; but, as shown, Plato indirectly corrects the statement. The first astronomical teacher of men was Ouranos, because he is one of the seven Dhyani Chohans of that second period or Race. Thus also in the second Manvantara (that of Svarochisha), among the seven sons of the Manu, the presiding gods or Rishis of that race, we find Gads, the teacher of astronomy (Judice), one of the names of Brahma. And thus also the Chinese revere Taiwan (or the sky, Airiness), and name him as their first teacher of astronomy. Airiness gave birth to the Titans of the Third Race, and it is they who (personified by Saturn-Krones) mutilated him. For as it is the Titans who fell into generation, when "creation by will was superseded by physical procreation," they needed Airiness no more." Footnote to above use of Neptune, p. 765 "Neptune or Poseidon is the Hindu Idaspati, identical with Narayana (the mover on the waters) or Vishnu, and like this Hindu god he is shown crossing the whole horizon in three steps. Idaspati means also "the master of the waters."" The last quote is added because it throws more light on the role that the first three races played in allowing man to incarnate in physical form. If the Monads were present in the bodies of the Dhyani Chohans, at one point they may have "physiologically changed" as said below. p. 284-5 Vol II "The whole personnel of the BRAHMANAS and PURANAS the Rishis, Prajpatis, Manus, their wives and progeny belong to that pre-human period. All these are the Seed of Humanity, so to speak. It is around these "Sons of God," the "Mind born" astral children of Brahma, that our physical frames have grown and developed to what they are now. For, the Purnic histories of all those men are those of our Monads, in their various and numberless incarnations on this and other spheres, events perceived by the "Siva eye" of the ancient Seers, (the "third eye" of our Stanzas) and described allegorically. Later on, they were disfigured for sectarian purposes; mutilated, but still left with a considerable groundwork of truth in them. Nor is the philosophy less profound in such allegories for being so thickly veiled by the overgrowth of fancy. But with the Fourth Race we reach the purely human period. Those who were hitherto semi-divine Beings, self-imprisoned in bodies which were human only in appearance, became physiologically changed and took unto themselves wives who were entirely human and fair to look at, but in whom lower, more material, though sidereal, beings had incarnated. These beings in female forms (Lilith is the prototype of these in the Jewish traditions) are called in the esoteric accounts "Khado" (Dakini, in Sanskrit). Allegorical legends call the chief of these Liliths, Sangye Khado (Buddha Dakini, in Sanskrit); all are credited with the art of "walking in the air," and the greatest kindness to mortals; but no mind only animal instinct." (c) This is the beginning of a worship which, ages later, was doomed to degenerate into phallicism and sexual worship. It began by the worship of the human body that "miracle of miracles," as an English author calls it and ended by that of its respective sexes. The worshippers were giants in stature; but they were giants in knowledge and learning, though it came to them more easily than it does to the men of our modern times. Their Science was innate in them. The Lemuro-Atlantean had no need of discovering and fixing in his memory that which his informing PRINCIPLE knew at the moment of its incarnation. Time alone, and the ever-growing obtuseness of the matter in which the PRINCIPLES had clothed themselves could, the one, weaken the memory of their prenatal knowledge, the other, blunt and even extinguish every spark of the spiritual and divine in them. Therefore had they, from the first, fallen victims to their animal natures and bred "monsters" - i.e., men of distinct varieties from themselves." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:34:44 PST From: jcoker@eis.calstate.edu (Jessica L. Coker) Subject: Re: Terry Hobbes's Questions and Comments This message is a reply from jcoker this is from Nancy Paul and others This is a note of thanks for your ability to help us all think more precisely about subjects which seem to invite fuzziness. The whole subject of MASTERS seems to bring out the emotional side of many of us -- some worshipful, some cynical, etc. For myself they are logical necessities which make me vaguely uncomfortable. So, thanks to all of you who endeavor to write with clarity and help foggy folks like myself to separate what I think about these subjects from what I feel about them. Nancy. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 17:17:02 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: continents Dear Brenda: Thanks for the illuminating quote from HPB. While Theosophists might find it relatively easy to appreciate the need to consider seven levels of meaning to every religious symbol OUTSIDE the Theosophical tradition, they tend to exempt HPB's and Masters' teachings from this necessity. But nothing she says implies that her own statements should be taken solely on the literal, mundane level any more than those in sacred writings of the past. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 17:11:01 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: continents Dear Brenda: Thanks for the illuminating quote from HPB. While Theosophists might find it relatively easy to appreciate the need to consider seven levels of meaning to every religious symbol OUTSIDE the Theosophical tradition, they tend to exempt HPB's and Masters' teachings from this necessity. But nothing she says implies that her own statements should be taken solely on the literal, mundane level any more than those in sacred writings of the past. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 17:39:21 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: AAB/HPB Jerry H-E, Continuing my post from yesterday... > I believe you are correct in saying that our objectives > differ. My objective is to look at the Bailey writings and > compare them to H.P.B. and perhaps also Leadbeater and Besant. > In order to do this, I must be able to understand what AAB and FB > mean by the terms they use. If by "dog" they mean "cat," I can > accept that, if I can determine that is what they mean. My > understanding of what you wrote earlier was that you were certain > that AAB and FB meant "TSD" when they wrote "TSD", until I showed > that this would mean that they didn't know what they were taking > about. Then you switched and were certain that they meant "the > SD" when they wrote "TSD." Then you became neutral on the issue, > when the possibility was raised that they may have been quoting > from a document that H.P.B. wrote. You say that your "objective > is to learn as much as I can from this communication." Your > pattern of shifting positions suggests to me that you also have > other "objectives" that play an important part in how you > interpret AAB's writings. This concerns me. (a)What do you suppose my "other objectives" are? Do I come across as someone trying to force AAB on others? (b)You seem to be regarding me as a person who knows AAB's writings thoroughly, which is not the case. I am a student of TCF, just like you are, with a background which is colored by my previous exposure to AS material and some other AAB books (just like your background is colored by 30 yrs of HPB+ other studies). Can we shift the focus to 'studying' together, trying to find the answers to questions together rather than you expecting me to uncover for you what the mystery behind the use of SD and TSD by FB and AAB is? (c)I also realize somewhat of a peculiarity of my character, which is that I go for the 'big picture' and donot sometimes appreciate the 'nuances' in action, speech or writing. Believe me, I have a hard time understanding why you are stuck on this seemingly trivial (to me) issue; it seems like a tremendous waste of energy to me to try to figure out the use of SD or TSD by FB or AAB when I cannot find enough time to read the real HPB or DK works. > Our original agreement was to look at AAB's teaching and > compare them. In order to look at the teachings, we have to know > what she means by her terms. When she days "dog" does she mean > "dog" or "cat?" When she says "TSD" does she mean "TSD" or "the > SD?" I'm at a loss as to how to make this any clearer. This > procedure of defining terms is a critical step in the process of > making a comparison of the writings. If we are free to change > the meaning of her terms anytime we feel uncomfortable with the > implications of the writings, we will be doing nothing but > reinterpreting them to satisfy preconceived notions. This may be > OK with you, but it is not OK with me. Please tell me what you > don't understand in this paragraph, that I may try to clarify it. This is most exasperating for me too : (It is my contention that you do not need to worry about whether it is SD or TSD that is being explored inside TCF. AAB has said that she did not many times understand what DK's teaching meant; HPB has said the same thing several times about the teaching of the Masters that she gave out. Why is it so difficult for you to ignore what FB or AAB has said (by himself or herself) and focus on TCF proper, as transmitted by DK? May be FB and AAB did not really know what they were talking about, so what... > I hope Rita had a wonderful birthday, and please extend my > best wishes to her. We all had a great time on Rita's birthday. I often talk to her about my difficulties in communication with you (and sometimes others as well). Perhaps we (Rita and I)'ll get to see each other some day. BTW, can you say something about the 'origin' of your name? If it is too awkward a question, just ignore it! That is all for now. In brotherhood and in the interest of truth, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 22:28:03 -0500 (EST) From: HOBB@delphi.com Subject: Paul Johnson's comments on my comments! by Terry Hobbes Thanks Paul for your comments! You write: >BUT to refer to them as "Sources" rather than "sources" suggests a worshipful attitude, which I personally feel is >inappropriate. To each his own-- I loathe the capitalization >of words to indicate holiness of Those To Whom They Refer-- >it's such an affectation. . . . . >. . . .I probably don't believe ANYTHING in the sense you are >meaning. . . . When I capitalized "Sources" I did NOT intend to imply a "worshipful attitude". If anything was intended, I only meant to intend that HPB was getting information from a *special* source. For example, Master Morya may have given her information on a specific subject. This information would be information not gleaned from her own knowledge, her own reading, etc. HPB and KH and M all stated (whether we choose to believe it or not) that they had adeptic powers which gave them access to information not easily accessible (if at all) on the physical plane. I am not one to be very worshipful myself contrary to whatever impressions I have given in these theosophical discussions. I don't blindly believe something because HPB said it or because the Masters said it or because HPB said the Mastes said it. I try to understand the statement, the teaching, implications, conveyed by the statement and I try to relate it to other things I know. Sometimes I accept the statement at face value based on what I already know. Sometimes I say "interesting" but have not anyway to confirm or deny so I put it aside and wait for later confirmation or rejection. I don't think this is a "worshipful" attitude. I do consider that HPB conveys information from Adeptic Sources but this is based on years of study of the material and is not blind, naive acceptance of everything HPB writes. Many of the statements of HPB and the Masters I have initially received with a great deal of skepticism but years later would discover material that elucidated and confired the iginal statements. As a result, I have gained confidence in tis Source. When I asked you the question: "K.H. and M and other members of the Occult Fraternity have this knowledge. . . . .Do you believe she transmitted Knowledge from that Source?" I simply meant, do you believe this is true based upon your study, reflection, analsyis of the evidence, etc? I did not imply that you should blindly accept and believe on face value! I believe in many things and I hope that my "belief" is not nairve (mispelled) naive. I have tried to go through the material, evaluate it, and then try to see if I understand it and then and only then, ask if I can accept it or reject it, etc. But the bottom line is first, to really read and study what HPB writes without initially trying to decide if what she says is right or wrong, true or false, or anything, but simply to try to UNDERSTAND what she is talking about. I find that far too many students of her writings aren't willing to (1) LISTEN and (2) try to UNDERSTAND what she is talking about. Enough of this. I do not worship either HPB or the Masters. But I do respect HPB and t the Masters based upon my study of their writings over many years. I don't think HPB or the Masters want us to worship them! But I am grateful to them for what they have given out to the world! Terry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 23:17:13 -0500 From: HOBB@delphi.com Subject: Paul Johnson's comments on my comments! by Terry Hobbes Thanks Paul for your comments! You write: >BUT to refer to them as "Sources" rather than "sources" suggests a worshipful attitude, which I personally feel is >inappropriate. To each his own-- I loathe the capitalization >of words to indicate holiness of Those To Whom They Refer-- >it's such an affectation. . . . . >. . . .I probably don't believe ANYTHING in the sense you are >meaning. . . . When I capitalized "Sources" I did NOT intend to imply a "worshipful attitude". If anything was intended, I only meant to intend that HPB was getting information from a *special* source. For example, Master Morya may have given her information on a specific subject. This information would be information not gleaned from her own knowledge, her own reading, etc. HPB and KH and M all stated (whether we choose to believe it or not) that they had adeptic powers which gave them access to information not easily accessible (if at all) on the physical plane. I am not one to be very worshipful myself contrary to whatever impressions I have given in these theosophical discussions. I don't blindly believe something because HPB said it or because the Masters said it or because HPB said the Mastes said it. I try to understand the statement, the teaching, implications, conveyed by the statement and I try to relate it to other things I know. Sometimes I accept the statement at face value based on what I already know. Sometimes I say "interesting" but have not anyway to confirm or deny so I put it aside and wait for later confirmation or rejection. I don't think this is a "worshipful" attitude. I do consider that HPB conveys information from Adeptic Sources but this is based on years of study of the material and is not blind, naive acceptance of everything HPB writes. Many of the statements of HPB and the Masters I have initially received with a great deal of skepticism but years later would discover material that elucidated and confired the iginal statements. As a result, I have gained confidence in tis Source. When I asked you the question: "K.H. and M and other members of the Occult Fraternity have this knowledge. . . . .Do you believe she transmitted Knowledge from that Source?" I simply meant, do you believe this is true based upon your study, reflection, analsyis of the evidence, etc? I did not imply that you should blindly accept and believe on face value! I believe in many things and I hope that my "belief" is not nairve (mispelled) naive. I have tried to go through the material, evaluate it, and then try to see if I understand it and then and only then, ask if I can accept it or reject it, etc. But the bottom line is first, to really read and study what HPB writes without initially trying to decide if what she says is right or wrong, true or false, or anything, but simply to try to UNDERSTAND what she is talking about. I find that far too many students of her writings aren't willing to (1) LISTEN and (2) try to UNDERSTAND what she is talking about. Enough of this. I do not worship either HPB or the Masters. But I do respect HPB and t the Masters based upon my study of their writings over many years. I don't think HPB or the Masters want us to worship them! But I am grateful to them for what they have given out to the world! Terry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 09:37:30 PST From: jcoker@eis.calstate.edu (Jessica L. Coker) Subject: psychology This is from Nancy: Paul, Thanks for your posting about the Protean Self and the Fundamentalis Self. This is sure a breath of fresh air. I am good and tired of the Co-dependent model which articulates behavior endlessly, but spends much less time on describing behavior. Helping out as a community mediator has really exposed me to situations where I had to let go of my own mental constructs about how the world should be, or how people should act, and just BE with the people who were angry and stuck. You never know how it will end or where the conversations will go. I have to keep reminding myself to breathe, but I am learning to withstand the tension of not knowing, of not being an authority etc etc. There are few rules to hold on to, and they constantly change. I agree with what you once mentioned to me, that it is so odd that HPB who was the ultimate heretic, often gets cast as the ultimate authority, She who ranted against authorities, is endlessly quoted to prove a point. It reminds me of something I read once, that rather than follow the finger pointing, we suck it for comfort. Let's take theosophy to the streets!!!! What is the title of the book that describes the two Selves ? Bye. Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 13:14:06 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Paul Johnson's comments on my comments! Dear Terry, Your interest in dialogue is in itself evidence that you're not an extreme Theosophical fundamentalist. Maybe only 5% in the movement are-- but since they're the most likely to be outraged by my work I am highly conscious of the nature of their opposition. I don't mean to accuse you of blind belief, and if my comments express some exasperation or bitterness it's based on a series of experiences since the Gnosis article came out-- not your own questions/comments. Divergence of opinion and outlook is a healthy aspect of the Theosophical movement, "within certain limits" as HPB said. The limits aren't, I would think, those of the opinions or outlooks but rather of the mutual respect with which we address points of disagreement. Dugpas are a pretty sensitive topic to me because a very high ranking Theosophist has gone so far as to suggest that my writings have been inspired (dictated?) by them. This dialogue is good practice for me to develop an explanatory rather than a defensive mode of response to criticism or challenge, and I appreciate your help in keeping on track. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 13:15:48 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: psychology Hi Nance-- It's The Protean Self by Robert J. Lifton. Bye From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Feb 94 12:01:49 GMT+1000 From: Andrew Rooke Subject: Planet Neptune The question arose recently on theos-l concerning the planet Neptune's status in the brotherhood of the solar system. Perhaps a few thoughts on this subject may be of interest: According to theosophy, as I understand it, although Neptune, its twin Uranus, and tiny companion Pluto are held in the gravitational embrace of the Sun, they do not belong to the family of the Seven Sacred Planets which as conscious living entities cooperate in the building and subsequent evolutionary history of our Earth. Whereas Uranus belongs to the "universal solar system" (as defined by G de Purucker) of visible and invisible planets comprising the solar constitution, Neptune and Pluto are celestial visitors which intruded into the outer reaches of our system, perhaps during the chaos of solar and planetary formation billions of years ago. Just as the planets have captured some of their moons, the sun may have captured embryonic Neptune when it passed sufficiently close to the "universal solar system on its own plane of being". This may account for several of the peculiarities of Uranus and Neptune observed by Voyager 2 and noted over 100 years ago by HP Blavatsky in the Secret Doctrine: "There is a whole poem on the pregenetic battles fought by the growing planets before the final formation of the Kosmos, thus accounting for the seemingly disturbed position of the systems of several planets, the plane of the satellites of some (of Neptune and Uranus, for instance, of which the ancients knew nothing it is said) being tilted over, thus giving them an appearance of retrograde motion." - p.101 "The true Eastern Occultist will maintain that, whereas there are many yet undiscovered planets in our system, Neptune does not belong to it, his apparent connection with our sun and the influence of the latter upon Neptune notwithstanding. The connection is mayavic, imaginary, they say." -p.102 "Nor do the two last discovered great planets depend entirely on the Sun like the rest of the planets. Otherwise, how explain the fact that Neptune receives 900 times less light than our Earth, and Uranus 390 times less, and that their satellites show a peculiarity of inverse rotation found in no other planets of the Solar System. At any rate, what we say applies to Uranus, though recently the fact begins again to be disputed." - 575. This solar process of cometary and planetary capture is comparable to the micro-universe of the atom that captures and discards electrons. Eventually, Neptune and perhaps Pluto will leave the solar system after their karmic visit has ended. This possibility is supported by recent research on the mathematics of chaos as it applies to the motion of the outer planets at MIT, in Canada and Italy. Canadian researchers, using computer models that behaved like the solar system, noted that if the particles started out between Uranus and Neptune " the orbits of roughly half of them became chaotic enough over 5 billion years to be ejected from the solar system." Astronomy May 1990 pp.34-39. Discussions of Neptune and Uranus appear in G de Purucker's Fountain- Source of Occultism pp.324-5, and his Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy pp.522-3. With good wishes to all, Andrew From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 12:38:00 -0500 From: jcoker@eis.calstate.edu (Jessica L. Coker) Subject: psychology This is from Nancy: Paul, Thanks for your posting about the Protean Self and the Fundamentalis Self. This is sure a breath of fresh air. I am good and tired of the Co-dependent model which articulates behavior endlessly Abut spends much less time on describing behavior. Helping out as a community mediator has really exposed me to situations where I had to let go of my own mental constructs about how the world should be, or how people should act, and just BE with the people who were angry and stuck. You never know how it will end or where the conversations will go. I have to keep reminding myself to breathe, but I am learning to withstand the tension of not knowing, of not being an authority etc etc. There are few rules to hold on to, and they constantly change. I agree with what you once mentioned to me, that it is so odd that HPB who was the ultimate heretic, often gets cast as the ultimate authority, She who ranted against authorities, is endlessly quoted to prove a point. It reminds me of something I read once, that rather than follow the finger pointing, we suck it for comfort. Let's take theosophy to the streets!!!! What is the title of the book that describes the two Selves ? Bye. Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 13:20:31 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Paul Johnson's comments on my comments! Dear Terry, Your interest in dialogue is in itself evidence that you're not an extreme Theosophical fundamentalist. Maybe only 5% in the movement are-- but since they're the most likely to be outraged by my work I am highly conscious of the nature of their opposition. I don't mean to accuse you of blind belief, and if my comments express some exasperation or bitterness it's based on a series of experiences since the Gnosis article came out-- not your own questions/comments. Divergence of opinion and outlook is a healthy aspect of the Theosophical movement, "within certain limits" as HPB said. The limits aren't, I would think, those of the opinions or outlooks but rather of the mutual respect with which we address points of disagreement. Dugpas are a pretty sensitive topic to me because a very high ranking Theosophist has gone so far as to suggest that my writings have been inspired (dictated?) by them. This dialogue is good practice for me to develop an explanatory rather than a defensive mode of response to criticism or challenge, and I appreciate your help in keeping on track. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 13:21:01 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: psychology Hi Nance-- It's The Protean Self by Robert J. Lifton. Bye From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 20:14:00 -0500 From: Andrew Rooke Subject: Planet Neptune The question arose recently on theos-l concerning the planet Neptune's status in the brotherhood of the solar system. Perhaps a few thoughts on this subject may be of interest: According to theosophy, as I understand it, although Neptune, its twin Uranus, and tiny companion Pluto are held in the gravitational embrace of the Sun, they do not belong to the family of the Seven Sacred Planets which as conscious living entities cooperate in the building and subsequent evolutionary history of our Earth. Whereas Uranus belongs to the "universal solar system" (as defined by G de Purucker) of visible and invisible planets comprising the solar constitution, Neptune and Pluto are celestial visitors which intruded into the outer reaches of our system, perhaps during the chaos of solar and planetary formation billions of years ago. Just as the planets have captured some of their moons, the sun may have captured embryonic Neptune when it passed sufficiently close to the "universal solar system on its own plane of being". This may account for several of the peculiarities of Uranus and Neptune observed by Voyager 2 and noted over 100 years ago by HP Blavatsky in the Secret Doctrine: "There is a whole poem on the pregenetic battles fought by the growing planets before the final formation of the Kosmos, thus accounting for the seemingly disturbed position of the systems of several planets, the plane of the satellites of some (of Neptune and Uranus, for instance, of which the ancients knew nothing it is said) being tilted over, thus giving them an appearance of retrograde motion." - p.101 "The true Eastern Occultist will maintain that, whereas there are many yet undiscovered planets in our system, Neptune does not belong to it, his apparent connection with our sun and the influence of the latter upon Neptune notwithstanding. The connection is mayavic, imaginary, they say." -p.102 "Nor do the two last discovered great planets depend entirely on the Sun like the rest of the planets. Otherwise, how explain the fact that Neptune receives 900 times less light than our Earth, and Uranus 390 times less, and that their satellites show a peculiarity of inverse rotation found in no other planets of the Solar System. At any rate, what we say applies to Uranus, though recently the fact begins again to be disputed." - 575. This solar process of cometary and planetary capture is comparable to the micro-universe of the atom that captures and discards electrons. Eventually, Neptune and perhaps Pluto will leave the solar system after their karmic visit has ended. This possibility is supported by recent research on the mathematics of chaos as it applies to the motion of the outer planets at MIT, in Canada and Italy. Canadian researchers, using computer models that behaved like the solar system, noted that if the particles started out between Uranus and Neptune " the orbits of roughly half of them became chaotic enough over 5 billion years to be ejected from the solar system." Astronomy May 1990 pp.34-39. Discussions of Neptune and Uranus appear in G de Purucker's Fountain- Source of Occultism pp.324-5, and his Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy pp.522-3. With good wishes to all, Andrew From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 17:50:40 -0500 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Academics and Theosophy Arvind Thanks for the catalogue upload. They seem to have collected together everything available that relates to the more sensational side of the occult. I wonder if this is part of the "Kaos Magic" group in or near Santa Barbara. Several years ago, a former student went up there to check them out and gave a report on them for the Los Angeles Center for Theosophic Studies (L.A.C.T.S.). He is a pretty open and liberal person, but found the group a bit too kinky even for him. The sex magic was a bit too strange for his sensibilities. Per your request, I've pasted your question below and answered it on theos-l. Regarding e-mailing stuff to you--I got an answer from our koko person who says that the location looks wrong. John Mead had made the same observation, but for some reason he can get through to you. Anyway, I'm still looking into it. > This reminds me to ask you a question I had about these > professors that are on the editorship of JTH. What > do these people teach at the various Universities? I > may be interested in pursuing 'esotericism' as a full > time occupation at some point in the future, and am > wondering what may be a good way to earn my livelihood > if and when I do that! Any and all thoughts/ideas are > welcome. This may be good discussion for theos-l anyways, > so pl do respond via theos-l (not that I have forgotten > the difficulty that you have had to e-mail stuff to me > directly). : ( is probably appropriate here! Teaching at a University is a wonderful way to earn a living if you can find the work. Right now there are not very many jobs open, but that may change soon. You need to love to teach, and be willing to work for less money then you would have been earning in industry. You can't get a position without a Ph.D. anymore--at least not in California. However, I understand that positions in the deep South are easier to find (like in Missouri), because people don't want to go there. I think you told someone over the net that you are 42. That is a little late to start a teaching career unless you already have a Ph.D. You may get lectureship positions at various Universities, but the pay will be very low with no benefits. The other route to take at our age (I'm 47) is to get the degree anyway and do a lot of publishing to make a name for yourself in your field. If you succeed in making a name, then you will be in demand and will be able to cut better deals. As for pursuing esotericism as a full time occupation in academia, this is very unlikely. But Professors who are interested in this find ways to express their interests indirectly. I don't know all of the people Dr. Santucci has put on as Associate Editors. A couple are new, and live quite far away. I probably won't be meeting them until the next conference. But here is some information on those whom I know: John Cooper is a visiting lecturer at the U. of Sydney, and lives in Australia. He stayed with us for a week while he was in this country a few years ago, and we talked almost non stop, swapping tales for the whole time. He is one of the most knowledgeable people I know regarding 19th century Theosophical History. His other big interest is Buddhism, and lectures on this at the Universities. Currently, John is working on his doctoral thesis, the history of theosophy in Australia. He is also editing the Blavatsky letters, which will appear soon in about three volumes. April Hejka-Ekins is my wife. She received her doctorate in Public Administration at U.S.C., and her area of research is in the teaching of ethics. She has a tenured teaching position at C.S.U. Stanislaus, where they offer a masters degree in Public Administration. The classes she teaches have nothing to do with the occult, though she occasionally teaches ethics, where she is able to slip in theosophical ideas from time to time. As for myself, I'm presently working on a master's degree in English Literature, and about 1/3 of the way through. I'm also teaching a writing class at the same University. But this is a short time position, that will last only about a year or so. My Master's thesis will probably be Theosophical, since I already have a lot of documents in this area. I haven't committed to a specific area yet. Otherwise, I have a mail order business selling used and scarce books of theosophical interest. Robert Ellwood is the Chair of the Dept. of Religion at U.S.C.. He teaches classes in religion and has published several books on American and Eastern Religion--some of them have sections on Theosophy. He is also a member of T.S.A. Joscelyn Godwin teaches in New York. I never met him, so only know him through reputation and correspondence. He is very interested in the Occult movement and mythology and has published a lot in these areas. J. Gordon Milton has his own organization associated with the U.S.C. Santa Barbara. I met him for the first time two or three years ago, and we talked for a couple of hours. His primary interest is in religious movements, and has been publishing a series through Garland. He is particularly interested in the fringe Bishops that have broken away from the Church and started their own things. The Theosophical Liberal Catholic Church is an example of this. Leslie Price is the founder of Theosophical History. He lives in England and I never met him, except via phone. But from working indirectly with him on the Journal, I can say that he is an extraordinary researcher, who has an amazing knack at finding obscure documents etc. that others have missed. He does not work for a University, but rather for the commercial world. Gregory Tillett is another Australian. I met him two or three years ago and we spent several hours together talking about history and his experiences at Adyar, but I never got around to inquiring much about his personal background. I know he has a doctorate, which he earned from writing the Leadbeater Biography. He has extraordinary historical knowledge of the Theosophical Movement in the early twentieth century. James Santucci is the Chair of the Dept. of Religion and Linguistics at C.S.U. Fullerton. He has published a couple seminar papers on theosophy. He is committed to making the theosophical movement an acceptable subject of academic research, and has come a long way in doing so. Robert Boyd and Karen Claire Voss are new on the staff, and I haven't become acquainted with them yet. As far as I know, the only time that Theosophy has ever been taught as an accredited course in a University, was by Dr. Santucci at C.S.U. Fullerton. It was only taught for the one semester. I have a syllabus for this course somewhere. It was undergraduate level, but more rigorous than some Master's level courses I've seen. April and I guest lectured for it. So, if you want to pursue the occult academically, it would have to be done with a much more critical stance than you have been willing to demonstrate in our recent correspondence, and probably you would have to pursue areas of inquiry that you have shown little or no interest in. Almost every academic I have ever met who is interested in the Theosophical Movement, have a historical and interdisciplinary interest in it. They look at the origins and cross fertilization of ideas. The existence of the Masters (and most everything else that is basic to the TM) is not accepted at face value as being true--at least not as promoted by theosophical organizations. In other words, I suspect you might find academia a bit disappointing. The TH journal has an interesting combination of academics and theosophists as subscribers. I think you might be very surprised if you saw the quantity of negative correspondence we have received from theosophists objecting to our publishing of research and documentation that comes to conclusions contrary to their own beliefs--or worse yet, our publishing of uncomplimentary information about theosophical leaders that some of our readers know to be true, but believe should be kept hidden. Look at Paul Johnson's postings concerning his complaints about the negative feedback he gets from his research. I'm not referring to criticism concerning methodology, but asinine attacks such as his being the "agent of black magicians" etc. Paul is not exaggerating, these occult organizations are full of people who hear voices and believe themselves to be in touch with the masters. One former student of ours left the state and joined a Lodge in a major city. She suggested that they start a ~Secret Doctrine~ study group: something they had never done before. The President finally OKed the suggestion, and said that he would lecture to them on ~The Secret Doctrine~ based upon inside information that he receives from the Tibetan Masters on the astral Plane! Needless to say, she quite the Lodge. One's credibility can be stretched only so far. Occult organizations are full of people like this Lodge President, sometimes they even become major influences in them--or sometimes the leaders. I believe the effect of these unbalanced and self deluded people have had on the Theosophical Movement has been a major reason for theosophy to move from the direction of academic acceptance to ridicule. You will have to do a lot more study of theosophical history before you will be able to appreciate the full impact of what I mean here. Teaching Bailey or Blavatsky, like one would teach Hume or Hegel is just not done. Even Dr. Santucci's course in Theosophy was bent more towards historicism and its connection to other areas, such as literature etc. The texts he had them use were academic and critical. They were not what would have been sanctioned by the theosophical organizations. As for teachings, they received only cursory attention. Remember, the purpose of liberal studies (By this I mean: English, Philosophy, Cultural Studies etc.) in American University system, is not to stuff students with knowledge, but to teach them to challenge what they have learned--to learn discrimination. Academics who publish books in the occult field, usually do so on the side. The tone of these works are more objective and usually unacceptable to the organizations written about. It is not that Academia is closed to the occult per se--they are just closed to anything that is expressed in a religious paradigm. Blind faith, rituals etc. all are part of a greater paradigm that assumes an authoritative hierarchy. Humanity has been victim to this paradigm for thousands of years and has suffered for it with the marginalization of women and other "minorities." Ironically, Blavatsky worked to break this paradigm, but her followers worked even harder to reinstitute it. Now, very few people are even aware of H.P.B.'s stance and efforts. One way to pursue esotericism professionally independently of academia, is simply to write and publish books. Many people with little education do this. Others who are educated, but hold beliefs that would be open to ridicule academically, also publish books through non academic presses. Much of it is garbage from an academic point of view, but that doesn't affect the sale of these works. There is a huge audience of readers of the occult who don't know the difference between psychic babblings and research. They also couldn't care less. I hope this answers your questions, and perhaps it will create some comments. If I find time this long weekend, I will try to address your responses on theos-roots. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 23:30:46 -0500 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: AAB/HPB, Egyption symbols etc. Arvind >(a)What do you suppose my "other objectives" are? Do I come >across as someone trying to force AAB on others? You come across as a person who discovered and were personally transformed by AAB's writings--as you had described in previous messages. Since AAB is such an important inspiration in your life, you come off as having a very uncritical attitude concerning her writings. This may be okay, if you are constantly aware of it during our investigation. >(b)You seem to be regarding me as a person who knows AAB's >writings thoroughly, which is not the case. I am a student of >TCF, just like you are, with a background which is colored by >my previous exposure to AS material and some other AAB books >(just like your background is colored by 30 yrs of HPB+ other >studies). Can we shift the focus to 'studying' together, trying >to find the answers to questions together rather than you >expecting me to uncover for you what the mystery behind the use >of SD and TSD by FB and AAB is? I regard you as a person who is more experienced than I in the reading of AAB's writings and in the AS. You said that you have four years experience. That isn't very much from my point of view, and I keep that in mind. I consider your background being "colored" by previous AAB material to be an advantage, became I'm presuming a connection between all of AAB's books. I also consider my 30 years background to also be an advantage, because that puts me in a good position to evaluate AAB's understanding of HPB. AAB wrote that she had a good understanding of HPB, and that her writings are a continuation of the same. I think my background will be useful in evaluating these statements. >(c)I also realize somewhat of a peculiarity of my character, >which is that I go for the 'big picture' and donot sometimes >appreciate the 'nuances' in action, speech or writing. Believe >me, I have a hard time understanding why you are stuck on this >seemingly trivial (to me) issue; it seems like a tremendous >waste of energy to me to try to figure out the use of SD or TSD >by FB or AAB when I cannot find enough time to read the real >HPB or DK works. The "big picture" is made of those little "nuances." Sometimes we can look at a big picture, then examine the nuances, only to discover that the big picture doesn't look the same anymore. The TSD/SD issue is one of lots of nuances. My reason for staying with this "trivial issue" is not to figure out which was really meant. That is something that can work on as we go along. My greater concern is to get you to "appreciate" the effect these nuances have in creating the "big picture." How AAB's uses TSD and SD is only one example of many more "nuances" we will be running into while trying to get an accurate view of that "big picture." Getting a clear understanding of what is going on requires that we move from the particulars to the universals, as well as from the universals to the particulars. When you say that you "go for the big picture" this suggests to me that your natural inclination is to go for the universals. We have to do both, or we only get half the picture, even though it may appear complete. >This is most exasperating for me too : ( >It is my contention that you donot need to worry >about whether it is SD or TSD that is being explored inside >TCF. AAB has said that she did not many times understand what >DK's teaching meant; HPB has said the same thing several times >about the teaching of the Masters that she gave out. >Why is it so difficult for you to ignore what FB or AAB has >said (by himself or herself) and focus on TCF proper, as >transmitted by DK? May be FB and AAB did not really know >what they were talking about, so what... This is the first time I have ever read that HPB said that she didn't understand the teachings of her teachers. Where did you find such statements? If HPB did not know what she was talking about, she would have no credibility. It is precisely because she has been so often proven in light of later cultural and scientific research that she did know what she was talking about, she continues to hold our attention. If AAB does not know what she is talking about, then she has no credibility for me either. If AAB didn't understand what DK's teachings mean, what good would it do us to read this material if we don't know what he means either? I read for the purpose of coming to an understanding of the material. Sometimes that is hard to do for various reasons. But if AAB obscured the material through her lack of understanding of DK's teachings, then what chance do we have of untangeling the mess? The why we need to worry about whether it is TSD or the SD that is being explored in TCF, is because this issue pertains to the theme of the work. How can one intelligently read a book if one doesn't know what it is about? Knowing the theme is one of the most basic considerations in understanding a book. >We all had a great time on Rita's birthday. I often talk to her >about my difficulties in communication with you (and sometimes >others as well). Perhaps we (Rita and I)'ll get to see each >other some day. BTW, can you say something about the 'origin' >of your name? If it is too awkward a question, just ignore it! You are very welcome to contact us next time you are in Central California. We are about two hours drive West of San Francisco. We would be pleased to show you the work we do here, our theosophical library, research, classes and the University. I also have a daughter, aged 20, but she lives in Los Angeles. My family name is Ekins, and my wife's family name is Hejka. We legally combined to two names when we married. This is not often done in this country, but is becoming more common among professional women. Because the practice is still uncommon, it creates problems with the banking and credit industry. It drives them crazy. I had a credit check done through TRW recently. I discovered that as far as they are concerned, I don't exist anymore. To this day, I have some mutual fund investments that I purchased under my old name, and the company refuses to change my name on them, even after we showed them a certified copy of the name change done through the courts. When we went to our bank to change the records, the tellers were happy to change my wife's name, but were not permitted to change mine. I complained to the manager that this sounded like sexual discrimination. He assured me that it wasn't, but rather "traditional." I told him that slavery was once "traditional" but that didn't make it right. He became very angry and informed us that in order to prove that he was not discriminating, he would not allow either one of us to change our names! We closed our accounts and found another bank. Ekins (pronounced "e-kins") is an English (Saxon) name, originating in the 12th century. My ancestor, upon returning from the Crusades, brought back water from the Jordan river in a skin pouch. The Priest baptized him with that water and bestowed the name "Ekins" which was understood to mean "a disciple after Elijah." In the twelfth century there was a lot of interest in Elijah, who according to Jesus (Matthew 17: 11-13) had returned as John the Baptist. For the Medieval mind, this "return" was proof that Christian converts could also someday be resurrected. Therefore, many Crusaders identified with him. Variations on the name are "Eakins" and "Elkins." There is a church in South England built by my ancestors that is still standing and being used, that goes back many centuries. Hejka (pronounced "hey-kah") is more of a mystery. My wife is very Slavic looking. People used to mistake her for Mary Travis of the Peter, Paul and Mary singing trio. She has family ties to Poland, but obviously the name did not have its origin there. It could be Swedish or Romanian. On another subject: Since the age of sixteen, my hobby has been cooking Indian cuisine. About a year ago, we became stricter in our vegetarian diet, and are now vegan (no dairy products or eggs), and find very little among my Indian recipes that I can cook anymore. If you have any Indian vegan recipes, I would love to swap a few. Brenda I think HPB was referring to sacred writings, that we find in tombs, or in temples. I don't think the Priests would expect to find any sacred writings among the graffiti or in business records. HPB's mention of the compass and ruler directs my imagination to the Masonic mysteries, because they (compass and ruler) are prime symbols in this tradition. Perhaps this allusion is to suggest that something of the Egyptian mysteries survives in Masonry. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:56:14 -0500 From: jcoker@eis.calstate.edu (Jessica L. Coker) Subject: future this is from Nancy -- PAUL -- Please tell me the name of the author that I sat next to at one of the Parliament events who you had asked me to say hello to. He specializes in thinking about the future of religions. Does Quest publish his stuff? I'd like to get my hands on some of his work. Arvind You had asked, a long time ago, about why we were interesed that is interested in Mr. Entin at the Roerich Museum in NY. He has been helping ship theosophical material into Russia as postal services are unreliable. We have an arts group TACO, Theosophical Arts Co OP, that shipped some stuff through him. He is enthusiastic about spreading the ideas of brotherhood and compassion through the arts. Sorry for the long delay in responding. Although I try to be religious about copying down all the mail, I don't always read it in a timely or orderly fashion. Jerry HE and Arvind, Someong just mentioned to me that Bailey had been a Christian Fundamentalist -- evangelical sort -- till mid-life. If true, perhaps this helps explain the constant reliance on anthropomorphising divinity????? Jerry HE Do you or April have any news on how the March 26 get together in OJAI is coming along? Bye . Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 17:16:12 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: Magick/Bailey/HPB Andrew Thanks for the detailed post on Neptune; it is great to have access to people like you, Jerry H-E and others via this listserv for almost instantaneous response to questions related to HPB's teaching. Paul I have only finished about one third of ISM but hope to finish the rest of it soon. It certainly gives a very different perspective on the Masters. I am still confused about where you are located though. If you are in Virginia, how can you be in the neighborhood of the metro Boston area; aren't there a couple of states in between Virginia and MA? Admittedly my knowledge of geography is poor and I have not attempted to consult a map of the US (except that found in the phone book!) but'd appreciate if you can clarify the situation. Also, you did not respond to my question about Swami Satchitananda.. is he the one with the flowing long beard and at least one video on Hatha Yoga? Jerry H-E I have too much to write but I probably have to pare my efforts as well due to the 'overload' situation at my work. I will be on a three day training course off-site on Feb 23, 24, 25 but will hopefully be able to check my e-mail during this time. I have great enthusiasm for this work though, as you can judge by the fact that I have chosen to come to my office today to write this down, even though it is a holiday here (this probably is the first such happenning for me in several years, and it was really made easier because of the fact that Rita did not have a holiday today otherwise we'd probably be watching a movie and eating out soemwhere and having several 'family meetings'!) I read also the first two chapters of THE ELDER BROTHER over the weekend and have gained fresh insights into the workings of the mind of Leadbeater. We all have our shortcomings and he certainly was no exception. One thing I should point out about AS and the Bailey writings which strikes me as totally different from the many other theosophical movements is the utter lack of discussion of the personality aspects of Bailey or other teachers discussed by Bailey. The focus in AS is on teaching alone, and 'impersonality', although the study of the teachings of other disciples/initiates down the ages is greatly encouraged. BTW, do you know anything about Andrew Jackson, mentioned by Tillet, as the only other person apart from AAB to have supplied a comprehensive view of the universe? I also feel embarrased by my discovery over the weekend on the very first page, first paragraph of the text proper in TCF (p.3): "The teaching which is given in this Treatise on Cosmic Fire might be formulated in the following terms. These postulates are simply extensions of the three fundamentals to be found in the Proem in the first volume of the Secret Doctrine by HPB. Students are recommended to study them carefully; in this way their understanding of the Treatise will be greatly aided. I. There is one Boundless Immutable Principle; One Absolute Reality which antecedes all manifested conditioned Being. It is beyond the range and reach of any human thought or expression. [Explanation of this by AAB follows] II. There is a basic law called the Law of Periodicity, [Explanation of this by AAB follows here] III.All souls are identical with the Oversoul. [Explanation by AAB]" Based on the above, it would appear as if TCF is an 'expansion' of TSD, not SD. I think we may never find out the reference to the quote from HPB on the 'psychological key' to SD (unless someone like Mr. Tillet decides to undertake a thorough research on AAB'; actually I'd myself like to do this but the time is not right as yet for me). On p.246 of AAB's autobiography, in the section on 'My Work' by DK, it says towards the bottom of the page: "...TCF..was an expansion of the teaching given in TSD on the three fires - electric fire, solar fire and fire by friction - and it was an awaited sequence. It also presented the psychological key to TSD and is intended to offer study to disciples and initiates at the close of this century and the beginning of the next century, up until 2025." Anyways, I read the first 76 pages (understood perhaps a fraction of the material; no different than the case when I was reading TSD) and will go back to one of your previous messages where you had given some comments on these to see if I can add anything. I was talking to a friend of mine the other day (Tom Koshy, works for MCI and has been into Ancient Wisdom for a long time) regarding the difference in writing styles of HPB and AAB, and he commented that KH in one of the Mahatma letters had lamented that "HPB is being too intellectual... I wish she would stop worrying about quoting so many authors and get on with the transmission of the pure teaching" (Tom said something like this, his exact words I donot remember and of course he did not give me any reference; I am reproducing this 'paraphrase' of what KH said to see if you or anyone else reading this can remember this type of a quote by KH). Tom and I both have benefited by reading Bailey and are beginner students of HPB. > Thanks for the catalogue upload. They seem to have > collected together everything available that relates to the more > sensational side of the occult. I wonder if this is part of the > "Kaos Magic" group in or near Santa Barbara. Several years ago, > a former student went up there to check them out and gave a > report on them for the Los Angeles Center for Theosophic Studies > (L.A.C.T.S.). He is a pretty open and liberal person, but found > the group a bit too kinky even for him. The sex magic was a bit > too strange for his sensibilities. I donot know much about Tyagi but the group of which he is a part talk about Dion Fortune and her teachings, among other things. I have several of Dion's books but have read none of them. Have you read any of her books? Any comments on her? > > As for pursuing esotericism as a full time occupation in > academia, this is very unlikely. But Professors who are > interested in this find ways to express their interests > indirectly. What about Cal Ins for Integral Studies and the JFK school somewhere near LA? You are right, it is kind of late for me to start on a PhD (I did 36 hours of course work towards a PhD in Operations Research after my MS a long time back in 1976 and actually have no interest to pursue that, even if I was allowed to take advantage of my previous work). I am much more interested in doing something like what Tillet did, or what Paul is doing, or even just having the chance to sit all day at home and study HPB/AAB and write 'hints' for others if some ideas come to my mind. I have a related question about the way the great Lord Buddha went about 'begging' for food most of his life after having renounced the 'golden shackles' of his palace. What principle does that illustrate? Perhaps it is not valid today i.e. it is better to earn one's livelihood by providing a 'recognized' service rather than by begging in the present day world (for all disciple or initiates). > I don't know all of the people Dr. Santucci has put on as > Associate Editors. A couple are new, and live quite far away. I > probably won't be meeting them until the next conference. But > here is some information on those whom I know: Thanks a bunch for taking the time to write out this stuff. When is the next conference at which most of these luminaries may be present? > So, if you want to pursue the occult academically, it would > have to be done with a much more critical stance than you have > been willing to demonstrate in our recent correspondence, and > probably you would have to pursue areas of inquiry that you have > shown little or no interest in. Almost every academic I have ever > met who is interested in the Theosophical Movement, have a > historical and interdisciplinary interest in it. They look at the > origins and cross fertilization of ideas. The existence of the > Masters (and most everything else that is basic to the TM) is not > accepted at face value as being true--at least not as promoted by > theosophical organizations. In other words, I suspect you might > find academia a bit disappointing. You are right, I donot have much interest in pursuing esotericism on an intellectual basis exclusively. But I simply love the chance to read unbiased, dispassionate look at various philosophies or concepts, as seems to be happening in JTH. You get all viewpoints about various systems and concepts, and this can't but lead to a more balanced view of life. Rule 9 (out of the 14 rules of initiation from Initiation, Human and Solar) expresses a similar thing beautifully when it exhorts us to ' not have any extreme or dogmatic views, as they take away the synthetic life of humanity'. > Academics who publish books in the occult field, usually do > so on the side. The tone of these works are more objective and > usually unacceptable to the organizations written about. It is not > that Academia is closed to the occult per se--they are just closed > to anything that is expressed in a religious paradigm. Blind > faith, rituals etc. all are part of a greater paradigm that assumes > an authoritative hierarchy. Humanity has been victim to this > paradigm for thousands of years and has suffered for it with the > marginalization of women and other "minorities." Ironically, > Blavatsky worked to break this paradigm, but her followers worked > even harder to reinstitute it. Now, very few people are even aware > of H.P.B.'s stance and efforts. I see what you are saying, and feel that one worthwhile project may be to take portions of AAB teachings and show them how they relate to other religions or teaching. This type of thing has probably been done for HPB's teachings; she herself did a great part of this type of work. > One way to pursue esotericism professionally independently of > academia, is simply to write and publish books. Many people with > little education do this. Others who are educated, but hold > beliefs that would be open to ridicule academically, also publish > books through non academic presses. Much of it is garbage from an > academic point of view, but that doesn't affect the sale of these > works. There is a huge audience of readers of the occult who don't > know the difference between psychic babblings and research. They > also couldn't care less. I hope I donot have to resort to writing just for the sake of making money but you are right, there seems to be an abundance of experts these days who donot hesitate to write about anything, whether they know the first thing about it or not. Here are two more of your comments that I hope to address rather quickly today before signing off: 1.This is the first time I have ever read that HPB said that she didn't understand the teachings of her teachers. Where did you find such statements? If HPB did not know what she was talking about, she would have no credibility. It is precisely because she has been so often proven in light of later cultural and scientific research that she did know what she was talking about, she continues to hold our attention. If AAB does not know what she is talking about, then she has no credibility for me either. If AAB didn't understand what DK's teachings mean, what good would it do us to read this material if we don't know what he means either? I read for the purpose of coming to an understanding of the material. Sometimes that is hard to do for various reasons. But if AAB obscured the material through her lack of understanding of DK's teachings, then what chance do we have of untangeling the mess? My response: I remember reading somewhere statements to this effect by both AAB (in the autobiography) and HPB, probably in TSD. I'll have to look for these and point them out to you at some future time. One thing that comes to my mind right away is the incident described in HPB's biography by Sylvia Cranston where HPB was asking about the value of 'Pi' (3.141.....); she wrote down what 'appeared before her eyes' but did not know what it meant. Does it ring a bell? If not, I'll give a ref later. More on this whole topic later... 2. On another subject: Since the age of sixteen, my hobby has been cooking Indian cuisine. About a year ago, we became stricter in our vegetarian diet, and are now vegan (no dairy products or eggs), and find very little among my Indian recipes that I can cook anymore. If you have any Indian vegan recipes, I would love to swap a few. My response: The part of India where I come from (Punjab, North India), 'vegan' life is almost impossible! We have become very conscious of what we eat lately, and I am expected to be a vegan as per my doctor (MD)'s advice. The closest that I have come to vegan food that somewhat resembles Indian cooking is the 'Macrobiotic' food. Are you familiar with it? There are several books of recipes for this, including some written by MD's. I can give you a reference or two, if you are interested. Thanks for the invitation to meet with you at your house. We'd love to have you (or indeed anyone with theosophical type of leanings) at our house. What are your plans for vacation in the near future? We'd be gone from June 20 to July 31 to India but other than that we'd love to host anyone who may be visiting the Dallas area on business or pleasure. Fraternally, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 22:47:53 -0500 From: HOBB@delphi.com Subject: Comments to Arvind Kumar Arvind, I continue to follow the very interestiang dialogue between you and Jerry H-E. Thank God for Internet! I do wish that you and Jerry would take specific teachings of HPB and then compare those teachings with what AAB says on the same subjects. Ray Morgan in his pamphlet "Misleading Mayavic Ideations" goes over a dozen or more teachings of HPB where Leadbeater and Besant deviate from them. It would be interesting to see the same thing done with AAB. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 22:58:53 -0500 From: mike@atc.sp.Paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: AAB/HPB, Egyption symbols etc. Arvind writes: >>TCF. AAB has said that she did not many times understand what >>DK's teaching meant; HPB has said the same thing several times >>about the teaching of the Masters that she gave out. Jerry replies: > This is the first time I have ever read that HPB said that >she didn't understand the teachings of her teachers. Where did >you find such statements? If HPB did not know what she was >talking about, she would have no credibility. Jerry, You'll find the following reference in the new biography "The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky" by Sylvia Cranston on page 312: "You are all very green.", she (Blavatsky) said," If you think that I actually know and understand all the things that I write. How many times am I to repeat to you and your mother that the things I write are dictated to me, [and] that sometimes I see manuscripts, numbers, and words before my eyes of which I never knew anything." -Mike Grenier mike@atc.sp.paramax.com Michael W. Grenier mike@atc.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys Govt. Systems From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 03:31:03 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: AAB/HPB, vegan receipe Arvind > I read also the first two chapters of THE ELDER BROTHER over > the weekend and have gained fresh insights into the workings of > the mind of Leadbeater. We all have our shortcomings and he > certainly was no exception. Yes he did have his shortcomings, but yours is not a very typical reaction when one reads this book and finds that CWL was a pathological liar (In this case, "lie" means just that). You became very upset when you thought that I suggested that FB lied, but for Leadbeater, whose lies were systematic, and proven to be lies, your only comment is that he has short comings? Here is a man that lied about his birth date, lied about his family circumstances, lied about having a brother, announced that Jinarajadasa was the reincarnation of a brother that never existed etc. Does this mean that you continue to accept Leadbeater's esoteric teachings without question on the basis that he claimed to be an Arhat, even though you now know that he lied about almost everything else that we can verify through records? > One thing I should point out about > AS and the Bailey writings which strikes me as totally > different from the many other theosophical movements is the > utter lack of discussion of the personality aspects of Bailey > or other teachers discussed by Bailey. The focus in AS is on > teaching alone, and 'impersonality', although the study of the > teachings of other disciples/initiates down the ages is greatly > encouraged. She learned this from the Besant E.S.. Members were admonished against the discussion of personality aspects of others in the work. Besant also tried to press this rule on the exoteric T.S. At one point she expelled an entire Lodge of 800 members in Australia because they insisted upon voicing their protest over her promotion of Leadbeater. In other words, this rule of silence was used to control the membership and to keep them in ignorance. The irony is that the E.S. members turned out to be the biggest gossips. > BTW, do you know anything about Andrew Jackson, mentioned by > Tillet, as the only other person apart from AAB to have > supplied a comprehensive view of the universe? I think you are thinking of Andrew Jackson Davis. He was a Spiritualist, and Clairvoyant. H.P.B. respected his talents. I have most everything he wrote here. His descriptions sound very little like the Theosophical stuff. If you are looking for clairvoyant confirmation of AAB or HPB teachings in his writings, I think you will be disappointed for the most part. > I also feel embarrased by my discovery over the weekend > on the very first page, first paragraph of the text proper > in TCF (p.3): > "The teaching which is given in this Treatise on Cosmic Fire > might be formulated in the following terms. These postulates > are simply extensions of the three fundamentals to be found > in the Proem in the first volume of the > Secret Doctrine by HPB. Students are recommended to study them > carefully; in this way their understanding of the Treatise will > be greatly aided. [quotes deleted] > Based on the above, it would appear as if TCF is an 'expansion' > of TSD, not SD. I didn't miss it. It has always been evident, even by a cursory glance through TCF that she is attempting to write an "expansion" of TSD. This is something I never questioned. My question concerns her other statements that TCF is the "psychological key" to TSD. That, on the face of it is an oxymoron. H.P.B. recommended a careful study of the three fundamental propositions before beginning to read TSD. She also recommended that all of the teachings in TSD be related back to those propositions. One of my strategies in teaching TSD is to follow this advice. >I think we may never find out the reference to the >quote from HPB on the 'psychological key' to SD (unless >someone like Mr. Tillet decides to undertake a thorough research >on AAB'; actually I'd myself like to do this but the time is > not right as yet for me). It shouldn't be difficult to find. The AS archives must have the answer to this, if one exists. It doesn't take a Gregory Tillett to request permission to see the documentation. It seems to me that any devoted member of the AS should have even more right than Tillett to see this documentation--unless the AS has something to hide. On the other hand, if this prediction is taken from something that HPB wrote, then there are many researchers who have combed though HPB's writings as thoroughly as Tillett did through Leadbeater. I know these people, but they have found nothing in HPB's writings or even in oral history to support AAB's statement. > Anyways, I read the first 76 pages (understood perhaps a > fraction of the material; no different than the case when I was > reading TSD) and will go back to one of your previous messages > where you had given some comments on these to see if I can add > anything. It takes years of study to understand TSD. This is the unspoken reason that I get down on you whenever you proclaim that this or that statement in TSD "is just like what AAB says." Your level of understanding of TSD is evident from your comments on it. You are reading a lot into H.P.B. based upon your experiences and understanding of AAB. Since HPB came first, and the Bailey writings are supposed to expand on HPB, it should be the other way around. I never came out with this before, because it would have been a very high handed sounding thing to write. Since you now state that you only understood a "fraction of the material," I can now state what I was hinting at. > I was talking to a friend of mine the other day (Tom Koshy, > works for MCI and has been into Ancient Wisdom for a long time) > regarding the difference in writing styles of HPB and AAB, and > he commented that KH in one of the Mahatma letters had lamented > that "HPB is being too intellectual... I wish she would stop > worrying about quoting so many authors and get on with the > transmission of the pure teaching" (Tom said something like > this, his exact words I donot remember and of course he did not > give me any reference; I am reproducing this 'paraphrase' of > what KH said to see if you or anyone else reading this can > remember this type of a quote by KH). Tom and I both have > benefited by reading Bailey and are beginner students of HPB. I've been through THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO APS many times, both alone and in groups studies. I don't recall anything like this quote, though they where uncomplimentary to HPB sometimes. HPB did say something to this effect concerning Besant--that she was all intellect and no spirituality. Perhaps your fiend was thinking of this. Anyway, I would like the reference. > I donot know much about Tyagi but the group of > which he is a part talk about Dion Fortune and her teachings, > among other things. I have several of Dion's books but have > read none of them. Have you read any of her books? Any > comments on her? I've tried to read Fortune, but can't get into her. I carefully read a biography of her a few years ago, that gave me the beginnings of a data base of research concerning her, but haven't done much with it. She had some ideas that struck me as pretty strange. There are some women's spirituality groups that are into her. > What about Cal Ins for Integral Studies and the JFK school > somewhere near LA? You are right, it is kind of late for > me to start on a PhD (I did 36 hours of course work towards > a PhD in Operations Research after my MS a long time back > in 1976 and actually have no interest to pursue that, even > if I was allowed to take advantage of my previous work). I > am much more interested in doing something like what Tillet > did, or what Paul is doing, or even just having the > chance to sit all day at home and study HPB/AAB and write > 'hints' for others if some ideas come to my mind. I don't know anything about the JFK school. As for the Cal. Institute for Integral Studies, I met people involved with it some years ago. At that time, the University was not accredited, and may not be now. This is typical of a lot of private Colleges. They do innovative things, but lack the resources to also teach classes that meet accreditation requirements--or more often, just have no desire to meet those requirements. Personally, I would never go to an unaccredited University because the degree is worthless in most circumstances. You would have done better to have majored in English or Philosophy, as it would have been more relevant to HPB and AAB. For instance, in English, one can do research on W.B. Yates' connection with Blavatsky and her E.S., and write about how it influenced his poetry. In Philosophy, in a graduate or post grad. program, one could compare Blavatsky to Schopenhauer--or write about the influence of Eastern Philosophy on the West. A former student of mine is going back to school, majoring in Religious studies at C.S.U. Santa Barbara. He is doing this because of his theosophical studies. You might think about doing something like this. You could take one class at a time after work. You don't need a Ph.D. to do what Tillett or Paul is doing-- not even a Masters. But it is a tremendous commitment of time, and to gain any academic recognition, you would have to learn research and writing techniques. > I have a related question about the way the great Lord Buddha > went about 'begging' for food most of his life after having > renounced the 'golden shackles' of his palace. What > principle does that illustrate? Perhaps it is not valid > today i.e. it is better to earn one's livelihood by > providing a 'recognized' service rather than by begging in the > present day world (for all disciple or initiates). Buddhism is not my field--just something I'm deeply interest in. My understanding is that the Buddha had to experience the world as it is before he could find enlightenment. The story is that as a child, he was kept from having knowledge of poverty, death, disease and old age. He had to learn about these things. Being a beggar in Nepal, 2500 years ago is far more acceptable than doing the same in puritanical America. There is an ingrained cultural belief in the United States that one must work hard. Beggars and people on welfare are looked down upon as failures, or people trying to escape responsibility. Our legal system is set up to punish them--even our welfare system does so. The attitude had its beginnings with the Puritans, who first settled here. They believed that if a person were wealthy, it was evidence that God favored them, and it was a sign that they would go to heaven. Therefore everyone worked very hard to be wealthy. > Thanks a bunch for taking the time to write out this stuff. > When is the next conference at which most of these luminaries > may be present? We are thinking about 1995, in London. > I see what you are saying, and feel that one worthwhile project > may be to take portions of AAB teachings and show them > how they relate to other religions or teaching. This type of > thing has probably been done for HPB's teachings; she herself > did a great part of this type of work. It hasn't been done for HPB yet. Most people still interpret HPB in terms of neo-theosophy, and/or through a victorian paradigm. HPB has to be rediscovered. Maybe in the next century. > AAB (in the autobiography) and HPB, probably in TSD. I'll > have to look for these and point them out to you at some > future time. One thing that comes to my mind right away is the > incident described in HPB's biography by Sylvia Cranston where > HPB was asking about the value of 'Pi' (3.141.....); she > wrote down what 'appeared before her eyes' but did not know > what it meant. Does it ring a bell? If not, I'll give a ref > later. More on this whole topic later... H.P.B. mentioned many times in correspondence and in conversations that she was a dunce in arithmetic. She made a point of this in an unpublished letter to Ralston Skinner, the author of THE SOURCE OF MEASURES. In this letter, H.P.B. expressed her admiration to Skinner for his research, and at the same time told him that she had no talent for mathematics. Still that doesn't mean that she didn't understand what Skinner was doing. She discusses Skinner's book in TSD, and writes very intelligently about its strong and weak points. You would have to give me the reference in Cranston's book, so that I could know the context in order to comment on it. However, HPB did copy material from the astral light. She would call up the material, then copy passages from it. In ISIS UNVEILED, there were instances where she would copy multiple digit numbers backwards, probably confusing them, because she would be seeing them as a mirror image in the astral light. For instance a reference to page 123, may become p. 321. I can explain to you Einstein's special and his general theories of relativity, but I can't demonstrate it mathematically. Even so, my understanding of his theories are "correct," according to physicists that I have talked to, who do understand it from a mathematical angle. I think HPB was talking about the same kind of thing. Remember, she claimed to have gone through special training with her teachers. The VOICE OF THE SILENCE is supposed to be translations of material she memorized while undergoing that training. She also had no knowledge of the Indian languages, but when she traveled into an area, she would speak the language almost right away, but forget it just as quickly once she left the area. There is a lot more to this issue about what HPB knew and didn't know than appears on the surface. > The part of India where I come from (Punjab, North India), >'vegan' life is almost impossible! We have become very > conscious of what we eat lately, and I am expected to be a > vegan as per my doctor (MD)'s advice. The closest that I have > come to vegan food that somewhat resembles Indian cooking is > the 'Macrobiotic' food. Are you familiar with it? There are > several books of recipes for this, including some written by > MD's. I can give you a reference or two, if you are interested. My father in law is trying to push Macrobiotics on us, and sends us literature. I remember it from the 60's when it first started to gain popularity. Personally, I don't agree with much of the philosophy, but some of it is good. My wife has a macrobiotic advisor (hired by my father in law), who told her to cut out all fruit from her diet. She did for awhile. We have one of the countries largest concentrations of Sikhs in our's and the immediately surrounding towns. Needless to say, most of them came from Punjab, so we are well familiar with Punjab cuisine. One young Sikh woman who is thinking the same way as we, asked us to share Indian vegan cooking with her. By the way, we also have the worlds largest concentration of Hmungs in our area also. They were mountain people who lived between Viet Nam and Cambodia, who were displaced during the Viet Nam war. The government wanted to relocate them by scattering them around this country, but they refused and said that they wanted to stay together. They choose Turlock, because they could farm here. They are Buddhist and make beautiful tapestry. We also have a large Cambodian and a Portuguese population here. Below is an interesting vegan recipe that we got through a friend in Los Angeles. It is hardly authentic Punjab cooking, but more of an Americanized version of it. For the butter, I substitute a light canola oil, or margarine if I want the butter flavor. I've made it several times, and it has always been a big hit. NOORALI`S BLACK-EYED PEA CURRY Mr. Noorali Velji Serves 4 to 6 1 lb canned black-eyed peas 3 Tbs butter or vegetable oil 2 medium onions, chopped 1 large green pepper, diced 2 cloves garlic, mashed 1/8 tsp cayenne 1 - 2 fresh hot chili peppers, halved and seeded 1 tsp turmeric powder 1 tsp curry powder 1 tsp ground coriander 2 fresh tomatoes, diced 1 Tbs heavy tomato paste dash salt or to taste few sprigs fresh coriander, chopped 2 Tbs lemon juice or juice of 1 small lime Heat butter and fry onions and green pepper until onions are golden brown. Add garlic, cayenne, hot chilies, salt, turmeric, curry powder, ground coriander and continue to fry and stir for 2 minutes. Add tomatoes and puree. Cook another 5 minutes. Add the drained black-eyed peas and fresh coriander and cook for 5 minutes. Add lime or lemon juice and serve immediately. This may be served with whole wheat pita bread or chapatis, rice, and pickles and yogurt. > Thanks for the invitation to meet with you at your house. We'd > love to have you (or indeed anyone with theosophical type of > leanings) at our house. What are your plans for vacation in > the near future? We'd be gone from June 20 to July 31 to India > but other than that we'd love to host anyone who may be > visiting the Dallas area on business or pleasure. There is a conference in Madras in June that we might be going to. If you are in the area, we may meet you then. My daughter will be visiting in August, but the date isn't set yet. That's it for tonight Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 05:02:56 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: HPB's undertanding of her teachers Mike Grenier Arvind writes: >>>TCF. AAB has said that she did not many times understand what >>>DK's teaching meant; HPB has said the same thing several times >>>about the teaching of the Masters that she gave out. Jerry replies: >> This is the first time I have ever read that HPB said >> that she didn't understand the teachings of her teachers. >> Where did you find such statements? If HPB did not know what >> she was talking about, she would have no credibility. Jerry, > You'll find the following reference in the new biography > "The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky" > by Sylvia Cranston on page 312: > > "You are all very green.", she (Blavatsky) said," If you > think that I actually know and understand all the things > that I write. How many times am I to repeat to you and your > mother that the things I write are dictated to me, [and] > that sometimes I see manuscripts, numbers, and words before > my eyes of which I never knew anything." Thanks for finding the quote. Your message came up as I was uploading one to Arvind. I don't think this quote shows that H.P.B. did not understand the teaching of her teachers. You might look at my answer to Arvind concerning this. H.P.B. seemed to understand a lot of things in very extraordinary ways. Though H.P.B. couldn't read Greek while writing in London, but she could read and write any language that dominated in any area where she resided--that is until she left the area again. Another thing, HPB stated in the KEY that what she was writing in the KEY and everything else since TSD was *not* dictated. But the Key and articles written around that time (And this would include the E.S. Instructions) exhibit an extraordinary understanding of esoteric philosophy. What I'm trying to get across, is that though HPB was not omniscient, and may not have understood specific things, there is no doubt that she still had an overall understanding of what she wrote, and did understand the teachings of her teachers. Remember, that she often remarked that she was unable to explain some teachings further, because of her pledge not to do so. This suggests that she understood even more than she wrote. H.P.B. was often self effacing about her abilities. Remember when she tried to credit the Mahatmas with the phenomena she performed for Sinnett? Yet in the Mahatma letters, K.H. clearly stated that this was just modesty, and that the phenomena was performed entirely through her own abilities. As I wrote to Arvind, there is a lot more here than what appears on the surface. I wouldn't sell HPB's understanding of things short. I think she understood very well the teachings of her teachers. This is very different from not understanding some specific information that may have been dictated to her such as some phrase in Hebrew or some mathematical formula etc. Or seeing "manuscripts numbers and words" for the first time. Also, her seeing something for the first time doesn't necessarly mean that she had no understanding of it. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 12:51:43 -0500 From: Diana Cooper Subject: New Book A new book has just been published on Theosophical history: Agarwal, C.W. "The Buddhist and the Theosophical movements, 1873-1992." Varanasi: Maha Bodhi Society of India, 1993 (70 p.) Contains bibliography. To obtain the book, please write to: The Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, Madras, India 600020. The book will be reviewed in a forthcoming issue of "The Light Bearer" published by the Canadian Federation of the Theosophical Society Diana E.M. Cooper 604-822-3943 Fine Arts Reference Librarian Fine Arts Library 604-822-3893 (fax) University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall INTERNET:dcooper@unixg.ubc.ca Vancouver,B.C. V6T 1Z1 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 17:46:32 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: Comparison of HPB/AAB Teachings Terry, Thanks for following along with Jerry H-E and me as we struggle along with the comparative analysis of the works of AAB and HPB. What may be useful for you (or indeed anyone on theos-l) to do is to perhaps list out a set of the 'top' 10 HPB teachings. I (and others familiar with the writings of AAB) can then provide the corresponding teaching of AAB, if any, alongwith the appropriate references. As I indicated in my last message to Jerry H-E, I'll probably not be writing any more messages this week so that gives you at least a few days to think about the teachings of HPB that you'd like to point out for such a comparison. I do believe that we can learn a lot more this way. Best Regards/Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 19:08:59 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: HPB's understanding Paul It looks like you might be on to something here. Where are these volumes of Tibetan Scriptures now? Recovery and translation of these texts can give a lot of weight to your theory, if we find them to be the source of the VOICE and/or the STANZAS. Of course, the problem with pulling together documentation of people meeting each other and such events where no details are known, is that we have to conjecture so many of the particulars. The end result is that we can never quite know whether they add up to a profound historical link, or just a damn good story. Of course, since you are devoting three chapters to this topic, there is a lot more to it then you are giving here. However it comes out, I know that I will be discovering a lot of new material here. I look forward to reading about it. It's interesting that you say that H.P.B. could read Sanskrit "fluently." Where did you find a reference to this? I recall Olcott has a story in ODL that may indicate that she also could read Tibetan. Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 14:20:18 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: future Hi Nancy-- Richard Kirby is the person you met. He's head of the London Federation of the TS Adyar, and author of The Mission of Mysticism. He has works in progress on futurology but I don't know their current status. Bye Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 14:36:19 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Arvind's questions, HPB's understanding Arvind-- South Boston is a small town in SOUTHERN Virginia. I wouldn't live amid the Yankees for anything, although my brother and sister both do-- we're all Southern born. South Boston is ALSO the name of a neighborhood in Boston, MA. Satchidananda does have a flowing beard and teaches yoga, so that's probably the person you saw. His disciples include the singer Carole King and the artist Peter Max. Jerry-- One interesting quote from HPB on her lack of understanding of a certain area of religious tradition is in the article "The Doctrine of Avataras" in the former 3rd vol. of the SD and now in the CWS. This relates to my discoveries of her indirect and interrupted access to the library of the Panchen lama in Shigatse: The little that can be said here upon the subject may or may not help to guide the psychic student in the right direction. It being left to the option and responsibility of the writer to tell the facts as she personally understood them, the blame for possible misconceptions created must fall only upon her. She has been taught the doctrine, but it was left to her sole intuition-- as it is now left to the sagacity of the reader-- to group the mysterious and perplexing facts together. The incomplete statements herein given are fragments of what is contained in certain secret volumes, but it is not lawful to divulge the details. The details I uncovered are that the Bengali explorer/spy Sarat Chandra Das went to Shigatse twice, in 1879 and in 1882, and brought back 40 and 200 volumes of Tibetan scriptures respectively from those trips. Olcott was later on very cordial terms with Das and his traveling companion Ugyen Gyatso, a Sikkimese lama. HPB's references to a Chohan Lama in Shigatse are full of evidence pointing to Sengchen Tulku, prime minister of the Panchen Lama and host of Das and Gyatso during their visit. After their departure and the death of the Panchen, it was discovered they had been British spies. Sengchen was tortured and killed as a result of having given them hospitality. It seems that Das gave HPB access to many of these volumes, which possibly supplied the Stanzas and the Voice of the Silence (many of these vols. were in Sanskrit AND Tibetan, and HPB could read the former fluently). Three chapters of The Masters Revealed are devoted to exploring this topic. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 11:13:44 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: HPB's understanding Dear Jerry, Sarat Chandra Das founded the Buddhist Text Society in Calcutta, and I presume it still exists. So it might be possible to search through its holdings for the material in question. One perplexing thing about the Voice is that HPB said in a letter that it was in Telugu. Maybe fragment one, which is from internal evidence Hindu rather than Buddhist, might be. Two and three might be in a north Indian language, but are so clearly Buddhist that it's hard to imagine they were from a Telugu original. The information about HPB's fluency in Sanskrit comes from Dayananda's autobiography. He served as a tutor of sorts and comments on her tremendous progress and her ability to recite several specific texts. Something I'd like to see tracked down is several books written by Sengchen Tulku in which he tried to reconcile Western science with Tibetan tradition -- inspired to the effort by his contacts with Das. These may have been destroyed after he was executed, but they may have survived. If so, they would probably be the most interesting of all the works written by people I identify as Masters. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 13:25:14 -0500 From: zgg002@sol1.solinet.net Subject: Re: MEETING VA > A retired theosophist friend of mine, Eloise Smith, is planning an > informal TS get-together in Virginia Beach on Saturday, March 19th. To > provide some structure, I will give a basic "Man & His Vehicles" lecture, > based mostly on Powell's books. > > Ron Banister 70402.2301@compuserve.com Hi Ron, I am chair at the Stil-Light Retreat Center in Waynesville, NC. I would like to invite you and your group to use Stil-Light sometime for a group retreat. You might also want to tell those who come to your meeting the following events are coming up there: May 6-8th MidSouth Federation Annual Convention (this event is actually held at Lake Junalaskua Assembly. For reservations call Miles Standish @ (706)782-3078. He is the treasuerer. May 13-15thMinding and Mending the Goddess Within (for women only) with Mary Gayle Flodden. May 27-29thThe Path of Meditation with Ray Grasse. This is Memorial Day weekend so everyone will have an extra day for travel. June 10-12th Techniques of Self Discovery: Esoteric astrology, Sacred Geometry, Kabalistic Tree of Life, and Balancing the Personality Energies. June 24-26th Men's Weekend: Whitewater rafting, hiking, birding, and other activities are being planned. August 26-28th Recording the Flow of Consciousness; Journaling as a Spiritual Technique with Valerie Keyworth. September 23-25Meditation and the Path of the Heart with Maria Parisen. October 14-16th"There is no religion higher than truth." with Tony Lysy. For more information call Stil Light @ (704)452-4569 or me.-- Lewis Lucas Chestatee Regional Library (404)532-3311 l_lucas@solinet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 15:00:11 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: MEETING VA Lewis, I have the number at home and will try to remember to bring it to work with me Monday. FYI public meetings are Sundays at 3 and members' meetings Wednesday evenings, I think at 7. The lodge has a house on 14th between Longfellow and Madison, again I don't have the number with me but it has a sign. Hope you enjoy the conference. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 09:11:42 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Lewis Lucas--DC trip The lodge address in DC is 5612 14th St. NW. Phone numbers are 202-291-7222 at the lodge and 703-471-1291 or 301-839-3302 when it is closed. Library and bookstore are open 2:30 to 3:00 and 4:00 to 4:30 (before and after programs). Members meetings are Wednesdays at 6:30-- note I was wrong before in saying 7:00. Have a good trip. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 20:16:37 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: subraces This is by Brenda. This paper is going to list the sub-races of the Fifth Aryan race as well as mention "family races" and miscellaneous branchings and offshoots. 1st Sub-Race - Hindu 2nd Sub-Race - Egyptian 3rd Sub-Race - Greeks and Romans 4th Sub-Race - Asiatic 5th Sub-race - European 6th Sub-race - American Quotes are from THE SECRET DOCTRINE by H.P.Blavatsky. Vol II p. 444-445 "Thus the Americans have become in only three centuries a "primary race," pro tem., before becoming a race apart, and strongly separated from all other now existing races. They are, in short, the germs of the Sixth sub-race, and in some few hundred years more, will become most decidedly the pioneers of that race which must succeed to the present European or fifth sub-race, in all its new characteristics." Vol II p. 750 "And yet there are records which show Egyptian priests - Initiates - journeying in a North-Westerly direction, by land, via what became later the Straits of Gibraltar; turning North and travelling through the future Phoenician settlements of Southern Gaul; then still further North, until reaching Carnac (Morbihan) they turned to the West again and arrived, still travelling by land, on the North-Western promontory of the New Continent. What was the object of their long journey? And how far back must we place the date of such visits? The archaic records show the Initiates of the Second Sub-Race of the Aryan family moving from one land to the other for the purpose of supervising the building..... (etc.)" Vol II p. 743 "The Secret Doctrine teaches that it was the latest, seventh sub-race of the Atlanteans, already swallowed up in one of the early sub-races of the Aryan stock, one that had been gradually spreading over the continent and islands of Europe, as soon as they had begun to emerge from the seas. Descending from the high plateaux of Asia, where the two Races had sought refuge in the days of the agony of Atlantis, it had been slowly settling and colonizing the freshly emerged lands. The emigrant sub-race had rapidly increased and multiplied on that virgin soil; had divided into many families, which in their turn divided into nations. Egypt and Greece, the Phoenicians, and the Northern stocks, had thus proceeded from that one sub-race." "Northern stocks" refers to all 3 subraces after the fourth and the "Phoenician" is a substitute for the surviving Turanian, Mongol, or Chinese sub-race - the fourth sub-race of the Aryan Root Race which isn't included as proceeding from the one initial sub-race. Vol II p. 281 "What would you say to our affirmation that the Chinese I speak of the inland, the true Chinaman, not of the hybrid mixture between the Fourth and Fifth Races now occupying the throne, the aborigines who belong in their unallied nationality wholly to the highest and last branch of the Fourth Race reached their highest civilization when the Fifth had hardly appeared in Asia" (Esoteric Buddhism, p. 67). And this handful of the inland Chinese are all of a very high stature. Could the most ancient MSS. in the Lolo language (that of the aborigines of China) be got at and translated correctly, many a priceless piece of evidence would be found. But they are as rare as their language is unintelligible. So far, one or two European archaeologists only have been able to procure such priceless works." I've begun to associate the Chaldean, Semitic, Phoenician, and Zoroastrian or Parsi, as well as Mazdean or Magi, and other groups with a mysterious influence and not a race??? As some of this is associated with Arab and resides on the continent of Africa, I can only guess that it may be the forerunner of the seventh subrace. For instance, Vol I p. 288 "To quote for this purpose from any other [other than Hermetic Fragments, bst] would be useless, since the public knows nothing of the Chaldean works which are translated into Arabic and preserved by some Sufi initiates." Vol II p. 471 Footnote "Strictly speaking, the Jews are an artificial Aryan race, born in India, and belonging to the Caucasian division. No one who is familiar with the Armenians and the Parsis can fail to recognize in the three the same Aryan, Caucasian type. From the seven primitive types of the Fifth Race there now remain on Earth but three. As Prof. W. H. Flower aptly said in 1885, "I cannot resist the conclusion so often arrived at by various anthropologists that the primitive man, whatever he may have been, has in the course of ages diverged into three extreme types, represented by the Caucasian of Europe, the Mongolian of Asia, and the Ethiopian of Africa, and that all existing individuals of the species can be ranged around these types." (The Presidential Address at the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. See their Journal, Vol XIV, 1885, pp. 378 et seq.) Considering that our Race has reached its Fifth Sub-race, how can it be otherwise?" Vol II p. 436 "As stated in ESOTERIC BUDDHISM, the Egyptians, as well as the Greeks and "Romans" some thousand years ago, were "remnants of the Atlanto-Aryans," i.e., the former, of the older, or the Ruta Atlanteans; the last-named, the descendants of the last race of that island, whose sudden disappearance was narrated to Solon by the Egyptian Initiates. The human Dynasty of the older Egyptians, beginning with Menes, had all the knowledge of the Atlanteans, though there was no more Atlantean blood in their veins. Nevertheless, they had preserved all their Archaic records. Vol II p. 222 "These traditions give the name of Rutas to the peoples which inhabited this immense equinoctial continent, and from their speech was derived the Sanskrit." Rutas may have been the fifth sub-race of the Atlanteans, which survived and turned into the Aryan 1st sub-race - our Hindus. Vol II p. 435-6 "The three "Virgins," or Virgo in three different positions, meant, with both, the record of the first three "divine or astronomical Dynasties," who taught the Third Root- Race; and after having abandoned the Atlanteans to their doom, returned (or redescended, rather) during the third Sub-Race of the Fifth, in order to reveal to saved humanity the mysteries of their birthplace - the sidereal Heavens." This to me points to the Greeks and Romans and their myths. Everyone by now is familiar with the incarnation of the Dhyan Chohans in the Third Race in order to provide future mankind with their wisdom and form. Here is what else is said about the third sub-race. This again verifies that the Greeks and Romans are a distinct favorite for this category.: Vol II p. 753 "No skeleton ever yet found is older than between 50, or 60,000 years, and man's size was reduced from 15 to 10 or 12 feet, ever since the third sub-race of the Aryan stock, which sub-race born and developed in Europe and Asia Minor under new climates and conditions had become European." Vol II p. 435 "Now our Fifth Root-Race has already been in existence as a race sui generis and quite free from its parent stem about 1,000,000 years; therefore it must be inferred that each of the four preceding Sub-Races has lived approximately 210,000 years; thus each Family-Race has an average existence of about 30,000 years. Thus the European "Family Race" has still a good many thousand years to run, although the nations or the innumerable spines upon it, vary with each succeeding "season" of three or four thousand years. It is somewhat curious to mark the comparative approximation of duration between the lives of a "Family-Race" and a "Sidereal year."" Vol II p. 106 "The several branches of the Aryan Race, the Asiatic and the European, the Hindu and the Greek, did their best to conceal their [the kabiri's, bst] true nature, if not their importance." And again we see, Asiatic - fourth, European - fifth, Hindu - first, Greek - third. Vol II p. 433 "Nevertheless, the meaning is plain, as the three Zodiacs belong to three different epochs: namely, to the last three family races of the fourth Sub-race of the Fifth Root-race, each of which must have lived approximately from 25 to 30,000 years. The first of these (the "Aryan Asiatics") witnessed the doom of the last of the populations of the "giant Atlanteans" who perished some 850,000 years ago (the Ruta and Daitya Island-Continents) toward the close of the Miocene Age. Ihe fourth sub-race witnessed the destruction of the last remnant of the Atlanteans the Aryo-Atlanteans in the last island of Atlantis, namely, some 11,000 years ago." Vol II p. 433 footnote "The term "Atlantean" must not mislead the reader to regard these as one race only, or even a nation. It is as though one said "Asiatics." Many, multityped, and various were the Atlanteans, who represented several humanities, and almost a countless number of races and nations, more varied indeed than would be the "Europeans" were this name to be given indiscriminately to the five existing parts of the world; which, at the rate colonization is proceeding, will be the case, perhaps, in less than two or three hundred years." Vol II p. 425 "They "of the yellow hue" are the forefathers of those whom Ethnology now classes as the Turanians, the Mongols, Chinese and other ancient nations; and the land they fled to was no other than Central Asia. There entire new races were born; there they lived and died until the separation of the nations. But this "separation" did not take place either in the localities assigned for it by modern science, nor in the way the Aryans are shown to have divided and separated by Max Muller and other Aryanists. Nearly two-thirds of one million years have elapsed since that period. The yellow-faced giants of the post-Atlantean day had ample time, throughout this forced confinement to one part of the world, and with the same racial blood and without any fresh infusion or admixture in it, to branch off during a period of nearly 700,000 years into the most heterogeneous and diversified types. The same is shown in Africa; nowhere does a more extraordinary variability of types exist, from black to almost white, from gigantic men to dwarfish races; and this only because of their forced isolation. The Africans have never left their continent for several hundred thousands of years. If tomorrow the continent of Europe were to disappear and other lands to re-emerge instead; and if the African tribes were to separate and scatter on the face of the earth, it is they who, in about a hundred thousand years hence, would form the bulk of the civilized nations. And it is the descendants of those of our highly cultured nations, who might have survived on some one island, without any means of crossing the new seas, that would fall back into a state of relative savagery." Vol II p. 738 Part of a chart titled "FACTORS CONCERNED IN THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, ANIMAL AND VEGETABLE - BASIC ASTRAL PROTOTYPES PASS INTO THE PHYSICAL. 1. Variation transmitted by heredity. 2. Natural Selection. 3. Sexual Selection. 4. Physiological Selection. 5. Isolation. 6. Correlation of Growth. 7. Adaptation to Environment. (Intelligent as opposed to mechanical causation.)" Note: Sexual Selection occurred in the Third Root-Race. Physiological Selection means man is now physical and independent in the Fourth Root-Race. Fifth Root Race - Inconsistent contact with Divine Beings or Isolation from progenitors. I hope these thoughts make some sense. I really have about 10-20 times this amount of material and may be able to make some more combinations of quotes if no one objects.