Theos-Talk Archives (July 1998 Message tt00135)

>Dallas offerrf:
>
>Well !  if "E.O." stands for "Eminent Occultist,"  someone is
>either making or accepting claims.  Who can tell ?  And why
>should such a thing be allowed ?  I wonder why, if a thing be
>true, then why does it need any kind of "back-up" from anyone.
>Sounds like someone is making claims of "authority."  The use of
>a "name" does not automatically make a statement true.  A lot may
>have happened since a statement was first used.  If this seems to
>be a slow and plodding course, it is for all of us who are
>beginners in the study of Nature's hidden ways.  As we gain
>proficiency the process  of reasoning speeds up.  We have all
>seen this happen in our own school days.
>
>To me this use of, say:  "E.O." is evidence of a desire for
>haste.  How can anyone be sure unless one is given the logic of
>any statement ?
>It is symptomatic of our times that we tend to credit erudition
>with selfless wisdom.  It is not always so, for the basis from
>which the erudite teach may be a mistaken basis.  Look at the
>changes in biology, electronics, astronomy, physics and
>astro-physics in the past 75 years as an instance.  Much of what
>we were taught in school has been changed and new Laws discovered
>for general application.
>
For those impatiently wading through the email swamp, this related to Doss's
comment(7/1) of Kym's KH citation that went:
It is my understanding that the above passage was a footnote by E.O. who
seems to be Master K.H. While it matters little who the author is, because
of the truth in the passage, is there any definitive statement by Master
K.H. himself that E.O. was him or is there any statement by HPB?
***

So  Dallas,  you don't buy that the Master K.H. of the Mahatma Letters is
the same E.O. that annotated Eliphas Levi's "The Paradoxes of The Highest
Science"?  I always thought that the moniker E.O went along with some of the
dry wit manifested in the letters.  Having read this work of Levi's on the
heals of reading the Mahatma Letters, I thought there was a strong
continuity of thought with K.H. and the E.O. notes.  [However, whatever
Theosophist who translated the version I have was rather "clueless" when it
comes to experiential occultism and experiential mysticism, IMHO.  Although,
they were certainly more conversant than Levi on Eastern philosophy.  Only
the initials of C.J. are given and Kesslinger's couldn't relate what the
C.J. stood for.]  In the Mahatma Letters, K.H. makes several references to
Levi, to the point that whenever Sinnett needed a remedial lesson on basic
magic/occultism he was referred to Levi's works.

This brings up one of the re-occuring issue of Eliphas Levi's place in
occultism...(this was raised as an issue without "takers" on one of my other
lists)...Did Levi have any official membership in Roscicruician or
Freemasonary groups, or was he just a free-lancer who studied hard and
tapped into the Master-pipeline?
Pam
pgiese@snd.softfarm.com

"Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light..."