Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00015)

June 2nd 1998

Dallas  TenBroeck offers:

Before anyone sets themselves up to criticize HPB and her
writing, one ought to, at least, fully acquaint themselves with
the scope as well as the details of her writing.

Much of this will be found in the magazines LUCIFER, PATH, and
the THEOSOPHIST in articles contemporary to those writings.

In addition there are many more references to the  S D in letters
HPB and others wrote concerning the S D -- one ought to be
familiar with those.

In the S D, HPB makes several references to what is INTENDED to
be printed in Vols. 2 and 3. Some of the references to Vols. 2
and 3 that HPB makes are to be found in SD I vii, xl, 11 ;  S D
II 437, 798;

In "The Negators of Science"  [ LUCIFER, April 1891,  Part 1,
ULT Edition of HPB Articles, Vol. 2, p. 80-1) ]  HPB gives a
survey of what was intended in Vol. 3.  [ HPB was evidently not
able to complete this as she died May 8th, 1891, shortly after
this article was issued. Because she foresaw this, is the
probable reason, I think, for the destruction of the manuscripts
making up the 3rd and part of the 4th Volumes of the S D -- as
she could not edit them for publication. I was given to
understand, many years ago by an old student of HPB, that very
shortly before her death, she called in Archibald Keightley and
G.R.S.Mead and asked where the manuscripts for the 3rd and 4th
Volumes were.  They showed her a large pile all typed and ready.
She then said that she had received "instructions" to have them
destroyed. They all three set to work and tore them up. This is a
reminiscence, and I have not been able to secure independent
verification of this statement made to me.]

In the issue of Lucifer, for May 1891 will be found her last
article "MY BOOKS," and attached to this article in LUCIFER, is
an APPENDIX signed by 12 of the most intimate assistants and
friends of HPB in London.  It is important to refer to this as an
independent assessment of the value of HPB's writings.  [ See ULT
Edition of HPB Articles, Vol. 1, p. 475. ]

In the magazine THE PATH,  Vol.2, p. 354-5 (February 1888) will
be found a request to HPB to continue and complete the writing of
the SECRET DOCTRINE.  This is also of great importance.  It is
signed by 20 of the most active members of the T S in America.
 Apparently Mr. Sinnett had offered HPB to write the "Preface" to
the S D for her and the Masters.  She declined.  [ HPB to APS, p.
88 ]  ]

 Annie Besant, after Mr. Judge's death in 1896, issued in 1897 a
"Third Volume of the S D;"  and the material included there seems
to be some of the unedited Manuscripts HPB was working on at the
time of her death.

In H.P.B.'s LETTERS TO A.P.SINNETT will be found several
references to the writing of the S D [ see pp.87-9, 172, 178
194-5;  see also 64,131, 133, 135, 157-8, 182, 194, 222, 225,
241-5, 253, 268, 282; ]  All are valuable as they give us a view
of the difficulties under which she labored.  [ "The Letters of
H.P.Blavatsky to A.P.Sinnett and other Miscellaneous Letters" --
Transcribed by A. T. Barker,  FREDERICK A. STOKES Co.  New York,
1925 ]


Let these speak for HPB and her intentions.

            Dallas

P S

Dear Brenda:

I think that no one's "picture of reality" ever entirely
coincides with anyone else's.  But as a substitute, one has to be
as far acquainted as one can be, with those sources that reveal
(at least partly) the sequence of events -- and in doing this,
one has to be generous and allow the others the benefit of the
doubt.

But when a categorical statement is made, then the one
responsible for it ought to be able to back it up with "chapter
and verse."

In matters of "history" opinions arise.  History is largely
conclusions and opinions.  It is not an exact science.  History
is largely, a group of opinions that are generally based ( if
they are fair) on documents or artifacts.  The "sequence of
events" will be more accurate, as it presents documents and the
observatons of contemporaries to the reader, so that the whole
picture is revealed as far as those limitations can make it.
Once that is made plain, the responsibility of the "historian" is
over.  Anyone who offers opinions, ought to be able
to substantiate them, or their credibility is at stake.

Conclusions or theories drawn, ought to be carefully labeled,
since additional material may arise, or be found, after
publication which forces the alteration of those earlier made
conclusions or theories.  To be fair, we ought to leave this fact
clear and open -- so that the reader is made to realize that what
is said or written is tentative and based on existing evidence
consulted.

Best wishes,        Dallas

> Date: Monday, June 01, 1998 6:57 PM
> From: "Brenda S Tucker" <brenda@theosophy.com>
> Subject: Re: HPB a forbidden topic?

>At 09:55 AM 6/1/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>According to owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com:
>>>
>>from Dallas:
>>>
>>> I did not challenge Johnson I asked for sources or proof that
HPB  spoke or wrote "untruths."
>
>Dallas,
>
>I think she was untruthful when she said there would be a third
volume of the SD with biographies of the lives of adepts in it.
>
>However, she also says this on p. 483 Vol. II SD, "Once landed
on, and having touched this planet of dense matter, no snow-white
wings of the highest angel can remain immaculate, or the AVATARA
(or incarnation) be perfect, as every such Avatara is the fall of
a God into generation.   Nowhere is the metaphysical truth more
clear, when explained estoerically, or more hidden from the
average comprehension of those who instead of appreciating the
sublimity of the idea can only degrade, than in the UPANISHADS,
the esoteric glossaries of the VEDAS."
>
>So, her picture of reality, Dallas, is not quite like yours.
(even though I didn't read the message referred to.)
>
>Brenda
==============================================