Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00564)

K. Paul Johnson replied:

>Frank asks "what evidence?" in response to my assertion that the
>evidence argues against the Theosophical dogma that HPB knew
>everything significant that appears in her writings before she
>started to write in 1874. That could generate a voluminous
>answer, but the simple answer is "Check out The Theosophical
>Enlightenment by Joscelyn Godwin" since this book goes into
>great length on the matter.
>I will mention a couple of pieces of evidence reported in my own
>books that are relevant, though.
>According to Dayananda's letters, HPB was an avid student of
>Sanskrit under him and was making tremendous progress as of the
>early 1880s. How can it be merely coincidental that her
>writings after that period are far more detailed and accurate
>about Hinduism than was Isis Unveiled?

Thank you for pointing out this. But that is NOT an evidence for
your dogma that HPB didn't knew in full the teachings when she
was sent out to the world. Learning another language relates only
to the outer expression of the spiritual knowledge (atma vidya)
she brought, excerpt you would like to imply that she was trained
by her teachers via Sanskrit...

>(Again, don't demand proof of this, but look to the sources and
>you will see it; she relies on dubious secondary sources in
>Isis, and cites far more reliable primary sources in the SD.)

>Another example of her learning is that the material on Tibetan
>Buddhism found in her very late writings is far more consistent
>with available source material on the subject than the things
>she earlier presented as emanating from Tibetan sources.
>As for conflicts indicating that she had
>no profound understanding of things Tibetan during her public
>career, I would refer you to an article by Ian Brown, a Gelugpa
>initiate, that was originally presented as a paper at a
>Theosophical History Conference in the 1980s.
>His article was in TH but I don't know the date.

That too is NO evidence that she didn't knew Tibetan Buddhism
before her coming out.
We are turning in a circle.

>You may be right that she privately taught reincarnation from
>the beginning, but it appears that Judge's testimony conflicts
>with Olcott's on this,...

That does not matter, don't? Who says that Olcott is in every way
a trustful source. HPB herself and Judge and the Masters deny
this.

>... and I would favor the latter as having much more contact
>with her.

Just see the facts:
Judge was her private Secretary from the first to the end.
Olcott was only made President of the exoteric body.
Olcott was never an accepted chela, only lay-chela for a distinct
time.
He opposed most if not all of HPB's and Masters directions and
had to be tamed by HPB several times, whereas after her death he
opposed totally to the Cause. He was never member of the ES,
neither of the secret body of NY in 1875 nor of the semi-secret
body of London and NY of 1888. But Judge was.
He wrote the rules of the ES. When Olcott was so close to HPB as
you assume why then he was made only President and not Secretary?

> I originally read the Collected Writings through the lens of
>Theosophical dogma, i.e. that she knew it all
>at the start and unveiled her knowledge gradually according to
>circumstances and orders. But rereading them in light of
>historical information about her associations during her public
>career shows influences constantly coming in that coincide with
>changes of emphasis and new kinds of information appearing.
>
>Cheers,
>Paul

I have made the opposite experiences. I read her works through
the lens of the Critic dogma, i.e. that she knew few at the start
and was "learning by doing". But rereading them in light of
theosophical information and information of her friends and
pupils shows (for me) that she never was ordered to go out
without full training and knowledge, including her use of
influences and new kinds of information. That way would even a
mundane teacher do. Esoteric knowledge can only be teached by
hints, with the voice of the silence, it must come within,
never from without. Your theory implies a wrong (Western styled) view
on occult learning which deals far more with allegories and
equivalents than limited brain minded thinking. One cannot judge
Eastern thinking by Western thinking.
The point is that you are building one axiom onto another axiom,
ignoring that when the first axiom is wrong than all others must
be wrong, too. Daniel has it, when he speaks of a house of cards.
There would be no reason for such theories if nowadays
theosophists would try to understand WHO HPB really was and WHY
she had
done what she did and WHY she ahd done it in no other way.
Peace.
Frank