Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00142)

Paul,

You write in part:

>I find it interesting that she [HPB] portrays
> herself as *attempting* to "gather together" the oldest tenets and
> "*make* of them" one harmonious and unbroken whole, which seems a
> precise description of what she did.  But those who make wild
> claims on her behalf would say that instead she didn't need to
> attempt anything, didn't gather together anything, didn't make a
> whole of them, because she was given the full doctrine on a
> silver platter by a single authoritative source which had it all
> already.

But Paul, HPB does say she had an "authoritative source":  Her Teachers
Morya, Koot Hoomi and several others.

You quote from HPB's Preface in THE SECRET DOCTRINE,
but you stop short and LEAVE OUT the very next immediate statement. I
don't think this is being fair to the issue under consideration, to
Dallas, to Kym or to the rest of your readers.

Here is HPB's statement with the part you choose NOT
to quote:

"These truths are in no sense put forward as a revelation; nor does the
author claim the position of a revealer of mystic lore, now made public
for the first time in the world's history. For what is contained in this
work is to be found scattered throughout thousands of volumes embodying
the scriptures of the great Asiatic and early European religions, hidden
under glyph and symbol, and hitherto left unnoticed because of this
veil. What is now attempted is to gather the oldest tenets together and
to make of them one harmonious and unbroken whole. The sole advantage
which the writer has over her predecessors, is that she need not resort
to personal speculations and theories. For this work is a partial
statement of what she herself has been taught by more advanced students,
supplemented, in a few details only, by the results of her own study and
observation."

So HPB writes (in plain English)that she need not resort to personal
speculations and theories, etc.

And, pray tell, Paul, who are these "more advanced students"?

Could some of these more advanced students be Morya and Koot Hoomi?

Master Koot Hoomi in his August 1888 letter to Colonel Olcott
specifically says about the forthcoming publication
of THE SECRET DOCTRINE:

"I have also noted your thoughts about the Secret Doctrine. Be assured
that what she has not annotated from scientific and other works we have
given or suggested to her. Every mistake or erroneous notion corrected
and explained by her from the works of other Theosophists was corrected
by me or under my instruction. It is a more valuable work than its
predecessor, - an epitome of occult truths that will make it a source of
information and instruction for the earnest student for long years to
come."

This is pretty plain English, Paul.

And  in the same volume of THE SECRET DOCTREINE from which you quote,
HPB writes:

"When the present work [The Secret Doctrine]  was commenced, the writer,
feeling sure that the speculation [by A.P. Sinnett] about Mars and
Mercury was a mistake, applied to the Teachers [KH and M] by letter for
explanation and an authoritative version. Both came in due time, and
verbatim extracts from these are now given." I, 165

AN AUTHORITATIVE VERSION!!!

And there are literally dozens of similar statements found through the
Secret Doctrine where she writes that her source is the Adept
Brotherhood.  HPB herself also wrote from 1875 up to her death in 1891
that she had an "authoritative source":  the occult knowledge of the
Adept brotherhood of which KH and M. were members.

You may not want to believe it, but she wrote it not one time but scores
of times.  Also consult THE MAHATMA LETTERS.

Your "quoting" from the Secret Doctrine is a good example of taking
HPB's words out of context.  Why didn't you also quote her words
immediately following?

Daniel Caldwell


K. Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> Hey gang,
>
> Like Kym, I've felt strong disagreement with Dallas's repeated
> claims to the effect that "without HPB the world would know
> nothing of Theosophy."  But knowing that nothing I can say will
> make a dent in his certainties or those of others who believe
> this, I did not speak up.  However, when he replies to her
> eloquent and well-reasoned objections to this claim with personal
> disrespect, with a message to the effect "You're willfully
> ignorant and therefore it's beneath me to engage your argument,"
> I feel obliged to quote HPB.  She wrote, in the intro to the SD:
>
> "These truths are in no sense put forward as a *revelation*; nor
> does the author claim the position of a revealer of mystic lore,
> now made public for the first time in the world's history.  For
> what is contained in this book is to be found scattered
> throughout thousands of volumes of the great Asiatic and early
> European religions, hidden under glyph and symbol, and hitherto
> left unnoticed because of this veil.  What is now attempted is to
> gather the oldest tenets together and to make of them one
> harmonious and unbroken whole."
>
> The only part of this passage which might possibly support
> Dallas's extravagant claim on HPB's behalf is the phrase
> "hitherto left unnoticed."  But in fact these ideas were not
> hitherto entirely unnoticed; HPB was simply the first to
> introduce them to a *vast international* public.  She deserves credit for that,
> but *not* for being the first person who ever taught the doctrines
> we know as Theosophy.  I find it interesting that she portrays
> herself as *attempting* to "gather together" the oldest tenets and
> "*make* of them" one harmonious and unbroken whole, which seems a
> precise description of what she did.  But those who make wild
> claims on her behalf would say that instead she didn't need to
> attempt anything, didn't gather together anything, didn't make a
> whole of them, because she was given the full doctrine on a
> silver platter by a single authoritative source which had it all
> already.
>
> To whatever extent HPB did mythologize herself and her Masters,
> she has been outdone ten times over by her overzealous
> admirers.
>
> Cheers,
> PJ