Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00554)

JHE (on Sinnett)
>>      No, I'm not "guessing his motives."  In his
>>Autobiography, Sinnett made his motives clear enough so that
>>"guessing his motives" isn't necessary.  He believed that HPB
>>often lied and gave false information because she was often
>>taken over by "black magicians."  Therefore, Sinnett believed
>>that he gave a more correct version of the Theosophical
>>doctrines than HPB.

Kim:
>He had in his possession the mahatma letters - the material you
>put higher than HPB herself as an authority . His trust in
>these, the observations of and comments on HPB within this
>material and his reliance upon his own powers of observation can
>explain much in this standpoint. The exact same accusations has
>been forwarded against TSR in the last couple of days on
>Theos-l. All is in the eye of the beholder.

JHE
But Kim, you are forgetting that Sinnett's information about HPB
did not come from the Mahatma Letters.  It came through a medium
whom Sinnett believed was channeling the Mahatmas.  After the
publication of Esoteric Buddhism, Sinnett's Theosophical
teachings came from his medium, *not* from Mahatma letters.
Also, Kim, Sinnett was warned in the Mahatma Letters that they
would never communicate with him through a medium.  Yet APS found
a medium and believe he was communicating with them anyway.  What
does that suggest to you about Sinnett's "powers of observation?"

Who made these "exact same accusations"  against TSR?  I'm afraid
I missed them.


JHE
>>      In my opinion, the study of metaphysics and philosophy is
>>inseparable from the historical context in which it was
>>presented.  An example of the study of doctrine outside of
>>historical context can be found in the teachings of
>>fundamentalist Christianity.

Kim
>    I have not yet found the time for answering your pleas for a
>scholarly approach, your ideas of methodology etc. Obviously
>historical context means a lot to you and it is certainly a
>possible
>approach with modern writers. As soon as we move before 1450 it
>is far more questionable if this approach can be of any help.
[snip]

JHE
Yes, history before 1450 has its own problems.  Fortunately, for
our purposes, we only have to go back 100 years or so, and the
documents are ample.

JHE (on HPB)
>>      In the sense that she was trying to give to the public a
>>correct understanding of the Theosophical doctrines, she was
>>competing.  My bias is that HPB's exposition of the doctrines
>>is the most faithful to her teachers.  I'm not saying that she
>>was infallible, but I am strongly suggesting that I believe HPB
>>to have been the closest to her teachers.

Kim
Yes the first sentence here is certainly biased.

JHE
Then you are suggesting that HPB was not trying to give to the
public a correct understanding of the Theosophical Doctrines?

Kim
It is very clear from p. 607 of CW that her real system "on
strict esoteric lines" is very close to TSR (except in the
terminology in a few of the principles), that previous writings
of hers also is labeled semi-exoteric by herself and as a result
that a whole range of accusations against TSR by devout
theosophists can be disregarded.

JHE
Assuming that HPB's system is "very close" to TSR (which is a
matter of interpretation), what "accusations" against TSR can in
your view then be disregarded?

Kim
The neutral analyzer (with your high scholarly standards) would
have to ask: Did TSR in reality see the explanations as
semi-exoteric rather than "selfishly not wanting to see HPB
divulge esoteric truths" (a common opinion among theosophists)?
Why would HPB to her own private students make the comments on
p.607? Certainly not for reasons regarding the public, the future
of theosophy, etc.

JHE
My "high scholarly standards" lead me to follow methodology.
Therefore I would ask: what did TSR *say* about HPB's system?
What did TSR *say* about HPB divulging "esoteric truths"?  After
seeing what TSR said, and how he acted upon what he said, then I
have to come to the conclusion that TSR was indeed inimical
towards HPB and opposed her.  The term "selfish" is not mine.  I
don't know who you are quoting.  Regarding p. 607, I find no
mention of TSR in my copy.  But whatever comments you have in
mind on p 607, they were all made with the intention that they
eventually be published.

JHE
>>I'm also making an opinion based upon historical observation,
>>that I believe HPB to have been the most intellectually honest
>>of the bunch.

Kim
>Well I like to think that "intellectual honesty" is a common
>trait among chelas and lay-chelas (only to their day of failure
>of course) - based on history *and* observation.

JHE
It appears, form my observations, that their days of "failure"
came quite early  :-)


JHE
>      My understanding was that Subba Row wanted nothing to do
>with the SD mss because it made certain teachings public that he
>believed should be kept secret.  The issue of the Masters being
>made public was another issue of TSR that was not connected with
>the SD.

Kim:
>Letter of Feb 24, 1888 (quoted in Zirkoff ed. of SD p [47]):
>
>"Now Tookaram writes me a letter. In it he says that S. R. told
>him that he was ready to help me and correct my S.D *provided* I
>took out from it every reference to the Masters!"

JHE
Kim, you only quoted part of this letter to Olcott.  If you had
quoted the whole thing, a very different light would have fallen
on it.  To continue where you left off:

"Now, what's this?  Does he mean to say that I should deny the
Masters, or that I do not understand Them and garble the facts
They give me, or that he, S.R., knows Master's doctrines better
than I do?  For it can mean all this.  Please take your first
opportunity to telling the whole of Adyar as follows:
(1) It is I, who brought in, the first, the existence of the
Masters to the world and the TS.  I did it because They sent me
to do the work and make a fresh experiment in this XIX century
and I have done it, the best I knew how.  It may not dovetail
with S.R.'s ideas, it answers truth and fact.....And one of the
two--I either know them personally as I have ever maintained; or-
-I have invented them and Their doctrines..."

Further, we have this quote from another letter in the same
source, that further illustrates my earlier mention of the
inimical relationship TSR had towards HPB:

"....Subba Row has even refused through C. Oakley to read or have
anything to do [with] my Secret Doctrine.  I have spent L30 to
have it typed, on purpose to send to him, and now when it is all
ready, he refuses to look into it.  Of course it will be a new
pretext for him to pitch into and criticise when it does come
out.  Therefore I will defer its publication..."  (letter to
Subiah Chetty, Sept. 10, 1887)

Further, as long as you are citing de Zirkoff material, you might
also quote what he says of TSR in this same text:

"The attitude of T. Subba Row was becoming very unfavorable.  He
was rather moody at times, and his Brahmatical upbringing was
influencing him to a considerable extent.  He was against the
disclosure of any higher teachings formerly exoteric; his
distrust for Occidentals was acute, and he never fully accepted
the fact that occult teachings could be given out so freely by a
"woman."  These must have been peculiarities of his personal
makeup, as he was in reality a high chela of Master M., HPB's own
Teacher, and was unquestionably an Initiate of one or another
degree.  The collaboration of Subba Row in the production of ~The
Secret Doctrine~ was becoming with every day more doubtful."

JHE
>>      My experience with the SD is that her tracings are very
>>historical in nature.  Using history as a tool for the tracing
>>of ideas is perfectly consistent with HPB's methods in the SD
>>in my opinion.

Kim:
>Yes but "using history as a tool for the tracing of ideas" is
>what I see myself as doing. If I wants investigate the meaning
>of a term like "paramartha" used in the SD, I consult the works
>of Shankara, Asanga and Nagarjuna in that order since they are
>all regarded as master & initiates and all treats of the subject
>in detail. Rather than bothering with any contemporary writers -
>unless the subject arises in a direct dialogue.
>  Of course in certain areas like the chronologizing of letters
>your historical approach comes in as highly useful. I cannot see
>the SD as similar in approach. Not a single historical context
>is provided in depth, ideas are simple picked out of their
>context and presented on their own face value - regardless of
>the author.

JHE
You might begin with the Introduction in the ~SD~, which is a
chronological overview treating in depth the appearance and
disappearance of the Ancient Wisdom through various
civilizations.  However, she uses your etymological approach
sometimes too.  Both are useful and both have their place.

JHE
>>As I stated above, my assumption is that HPB's exposition of
>>the doctrines are most faithful to her teachers.  That does not
>>make her infallible, but it does make her doctrines the primary
>>ones--next to the Mahatma Letters themselves.

Kim
>My assumption is that these teachers used HPB to write teachings
>to which I ascribe high authority.

JHE
OK.  Plenty of evidence for that.

Kim
>My second assumption is  that at least part of the Mahatma
>Letters were written by the same teachers.

JHE
OK.  But I would say most all of them were written by the same
teachers.

Kim
>My third assumption is that HPB on her own, so to speak, was a
>chela of the same degree of initiation as TSR and that their
>writings belong to the same degree of "authority". To roughly
>the same level I would assign - because of translation problems
>- the Buddha, Shankara and then a line of teachers Tsong-ka-pa,
>Patanjali, Krishna, Asanga and others.  With my level of trust
>mostly depending on my mastery of the language in which their
>works was written.

JHE
I'm afraid that you rate both HPB and TSR far higher than I do.
I would never rate either one of them with the Buddha.  As for
HPB being of the same degree of initiation as TSR, I know of no
evidence on way or the other, and his relatively short time of
exposure to Theosophy raises questions for me.   We do know,
however, that it was HPB's job to promulgate the teachings to the
world.  What was TSR's "job?"  Did he have one?  Where is it
described?

JHE
>>Therefore, if Subba Row's ideas are closer to some extant
>>Hindu work, that only proves that his ideas are closer to some
>>extant Hindu work

Kim
>Are you really refering to the upanishads as some "some hindu
>work".  I prefer "priceless esoteric treatises". "That his ideas
>are closer to some  priceless esoteric treatises".

JHE
:-)  Whatever you wish to call them, my point is the same.  If
Subba Rows ideas are closer to a "priceless esoteric treatise,"
that proves that his ideas are closer to some "priceless esoteric
treatise."

JHE
>> To express it in another way; if we were discussing
>>Platonism, would we not use Plato's writings as the primary
>>authority for what he wrote?

Kim
>I would certainly bring up Pythagoras, the neo-platonists and
>probably some eastern works as well - in an attempt to
>understand his way of thinking rather than getting involved in
>an broadside-exchange of quotes of lesser and higher authority.

JHE
Bring up who you like if it pleases you, but is not Plato the
primary authority for what Plato wrote?

JHE:
> Why can't HPB be the primary authority for what she wrote too?

Kim
Who says she cannot?

JHE
If you need TSR to interpret HPB, then TSR become the authority
for what HPB wrote.  TSR is then coloring HPB.  Instead, let HPB
be her own authority.  Let Subba Row be his.

Kim
Do I read you right as saying:
A) Theosophy is the true (and only true) expression of the
ancient Wisdom-Religion, which is the esoteric "truth"

JHE
No.  Where did you read this into what I have been writing?

Kim
B) HPB is the most "intellectually honest" expounder and highest
authority on this.

JHE
Compared to Olcott, Sinnett and TSR, in my opinion, yes.

Kim
C) From this follows (my assumption) that HPB is the highest
authority on esoteric subjects.

JHE
Again, compared to Olcott, Sinnett and TSR, in my opinion, yes.

Kim
>If there is some measure of truth in presenting this as your
>view it seems like a very rigid system devoid of much attempt of
>synthesis of religion. philosophy and science. I believe in the
>latter as a method of investigatiom rather than the sub-title of
>a Bible-like work.

JHE
My method is to understand a work on its own merits--not through
a syncretism with other works.   Once I feel that I have a grasp
on what a writer is saying, then I will compare that idea to
another writer.  I never assume that any two people ever say
quite the same thing.  I treat every writer as unique in outlook
and expression.  There is a big difference between synthesis and
syncretiism.  While Theosophy is a synthesis, it is not a
syncretism.  I will synthesize where appropriate, but I avoid
syncretising.

JHE:
>>If Kim Poulsen wants to combine elements in Plato, Blavatsky,
>>Subba Row, Vedic Philosophy etc. into a new, more universal
>>system, then I will call it the Kim Poulsen system (for lack of
>>a better name),

Kim
>Somehow I would like "old, more universal system" and
>"commentary on theosophical thought and esoteric philosophy"
>better. Maybe I lack ambition!

JHE
:-)

JHE:
>So far, identifications of each other's assumptions has been one
>of the main outcomes of our discussion.  I think this kind of
>exploration is time well spent.

Kim
>I hope so, since they are certainly time-consuming and Alan
>hates long posts!  :-)

JHE
Poor Alan  :-))


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