Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00528)

Jerry Schueler wrote:

> Then how about vague? or "subject to a whole lot of interpretation?"
> The point I was trying to make, Dallas, is that if HPB's writings were
> as complete and far-reaching as you seem to think they are, then
> please explain to me why the TS split into so many pieces over the
> years, and how her basic teachings such as Root Races, Planes,
> and Globes, are so confusing and have been explained by writers
> in so many diverse ways. Why do students argue over doctrine
> here on the Internet? I submit that the reason is that she left a lot
> of room to wiggle around in (maybe on purpose?) and gave us a
> lot of sketchy ideas but little real details.

Daniel Caldwell replies:

Why have HPB's "basic teachings such as Root Races, Planes,
and Globes. . .been explained by writers in so many diverse ways"?

Probably a whole book could be written on the various reasons!!!!!
But many writers have not really taken the time and effort to study
what HPB actually wrote on these subjects. Many have also given
their views based on their own "clairvoyance" or on what
the "Masters" have told them. Etc. Etc. Certainly the
subjects are profound and therefore prone to confusion.
But I have found far too many students not taking the time
and effort to read and REALLY PONDER on what HPB and the
Mahatmas wrote about these subjects. This is why a few years
ago on Theos-L I suggested that you, Eldon, and others including
myself attempt a study of what was written on the Globes
and Planes in the writings of HPB and the Masters. But
the proposed study barely got off the ground and soon
you and Eldon were disagreeing and quoting
Purucker and Leadbeater at each other. Admittedly Internet
discussions may not be conducive to indepth study of texts
but I felt that both you and Eldon were not open to
setting aside your own "conceptions" of things and looking ANEW
at the basic texts without also adding what later writers had
written on the subject.

I also think that you and Jerry Ekins had a series of
discussions on the various principles of a human
being as given in the writings of HPB. Again if I remember
correctly the two of you went round and round in circles
with little if any agreement on anything!

I wouldn't blame most of this on HPB!! Students come to her
writings with different backgrounds, different assumptions,
different preferences, different attitudes toward study,
etc. etc. etc. etc.

Probably you feel that you are way beyond assuming the
attitude of a beginning student but sometimes I find it
helpful to go back to basics and see if I have overlooked
things. Just try to throw everything out and attempt to learn anew.
I find it quite refreshing.

In my study of theosophical history, I have found various
writers (including Jean Overton Fuller, Boris de Zirkoff, Virginia
Hanson and K. Paul Johnson) making all sorts of bloopers which
indicates to me that that they were not conversant with all
the primary sources and/or had not carefully studied and
collated all the relevant material together in their reconstructions
of events, etc. I believe the same thing happens ALL THE TIME in the
study of the teachings.

> If she really was initiated
> into Tibetan Buddhism, then her teachings should jive reasonably
> well with the slew of new books available today by Tibetans. They
> do in some areas, but not in others. Tibetans talk about realms
> (planes) and bodies/principles (rainbow body, dream body,
> bardo body, etc) but no word so far on Root Races or Globes
> or planetary chains.

Which school of Tibetan Buddhism was she initiated into? And
what are the sources for your statement? I didn't know that
Tibetan Buddhism (exoteric? esoteric? which school? sect?)
was synonymous with HPB's Theosophy. There are alot of unstated
assumptions in your statement here. And that is part of the
problem. Seldom on these Internet discussions do the
participants have really indepth discussions to bring out all these
hidden assumptions, to define the scope and terms, etc., etc.
Also I get the distinct impression that many of us don't
really listen to what the other person is saying. We're
already formulating our rebuttal before the other person
has even finished his point!