Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00208)

Re: HPB sides with Kym against Dallas

Paul,

In your original post titled "HPB sides with Kym against Dallas" you
wrote:

>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."

And apparently to show that Dallas' statement was without foundation and
in error you quoted HPB's words from the Preface to Volume I of THE
SECRET DOCTRINE:

> "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."

Then you give your own commentary on HPB's words:

> 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.
>

Notice the last sentence of your commentary:

>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.

It would appear that you possibly believed that the just-quoted
statement from HPB also contradicted "those who make WILD claims on her
behalf", e.g., HPB "was given the full [esoteric, occult, theosophical]
doctrine on a silver platter by a single authoritative source which had
it all already."

MY MAJOR POINT in criticism directed toward your post was that in order
to understand what you had quoted from HPB one would need to read MORE
of the same paragraph.  In fact, read the whole paragraph.  And I quote
below that full paragraph:

"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. The publication of many of the facts herein stated has been
rendered necessary by the wild and fanciful speculations in which many
Theosophists and students of mysticism have indulged, during the last
few years, in their endeavour to, as they imagined, work out a complete
system of thought from the few facts previously communicated to them."

Whatever HPB is attempting to communicate in the first part of the
paragraph that you orginally brought forth to refute Dallas, I suggest
that what IMMEDIATELY follows (and was NOT quoted by you) is EXTREMELY
RELEVANT to fully understanding the part that you quoted.  Especially
since you then go on and pooh-pooh the alleged claim that HPB "was given
the full doctrine on a silver platter by a single authoritative source
which had it all already."

But notice HPB's words which you did NOT quote:

"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."

I contend that HPB's phrase "The sole advantage which the writer has
over her predecessors" refers back to be words immmediately before.

One should also ask:  HPB's "sole advantage" in doing WHAT?

In this paragraph, one statement flows into the next and to "stop short"
and not quote what immediately follows is to miss the whole message
conveyed in the entire paragraph.

In your various writings, you have given the impression that HPB
compiled (from various books and from various doctrines of isolated
"adepts" that she may have known) the Theosophical teachings that are to
be found in her books. In other words, HPB's Theosophy is some kind of
"eclectic" mix from diverse sources.  The word hodge-podge also comes to
mind.

One dictionary gives a definition of eclectic:

"Selecting what appears to be best in various doctrines. . . ."

In other words, HPB in fact did "resort to personal speculations and
theories."  And had her background, experiences, meetings with "adepts"
been different, you would probably, contend that her compilation of
teachings would have been necessarily different.  This kind of thinking
on your part makes clear why you pooh-pooh the claim that HPB "was given
the full doctrine on a silver platter by a single authoritative source
which had it all already."

Of course, I don't know that any serious Blavatsky student would
necessarily agree with your characterization that HPB "was given the
FULL doctrine ON A SILVER PLATTER by a single authoritative source which
had it all already."  This seems to be a caricature of what HPB and the
Adepts actually claimed.

One would have to know what you mean by FULL and what you mean by ON A
SILVER PLATTER before agreeing or disagreeing with your definitions.

But in HPB's writings from 1875 to 1891, she refers to the Occult
Brotherhood and THE Esoteric Doctrine of that Brotherhood.  One need
only read THE MAHATMA LETTERS for the same view. Koot Hoomi and Morya
constantly refer to A COHERENT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE IN THEIR KEEPING and to
giving out at least some of those teachings through HPB's writings as
well as in their own letters to Sinnett and Hume.

So I would say it is not a wild claim to believe that there was a
"single authoritative source which had it all already."

HPB says as much time and time and time again.  Ditto for the Mahatmas.

I append below some quotations relevant to this subject:

"The work now submitted to public judgment is the fruit of a somewhat
intimate acquaintance with Eastern adepts and study of THEIR SCIENCE. .
. We came into contact with certain men, endowed with such mysterious
powers and such PROFOUND KNOWLEDGE that we may truly designate them as
the sages of the Orient.  To their INSTRUCTIONS we lent a ready ear. . .
. "  ISIS, I, pp. v-vi.  Caps added.

". . . from the first ages of man, THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS of all that we
are permitted to know on earth was in the safe keeping of the adepts of
the sanctuary. . . those guardians of the primitive divine revelation,
who had solved every problem that is within the grasp of human intellect
were bound together by a universal freemasonry of science and
philosophy, which formed one unbroken chain around the globe. . . ."
Isis, I, 37-38.  This same theme is given throughout THE MAHATMA
LETTERS.


"In this curry of quotations from various philosophic and esoteric
truths purposely veiled [Koot Hoomi is speaking here of HPB's book "Isis
Unveiled"], behold OUR DOCTRINE, which is now being partially taught to
Europeans for the first time." Mahatma K.H., The Mahatma Letters, 3rd
ed. p. 118  Caps added.

Speaking of the book ISIS UNVEILED, Master K.H. writes:

". . . for its *incompleteness* no one but we, her [HPB's] INSPIRERS are
responsible. . . ."  ML, p. 169.

Again speaking of ISIS UNVEILED and Madame Blavatsky, Master KH pens the
following:

" 'You will write so and so, give *so far*, and no more.'---she was
constantly told by us, when writing her book. . . . And is it because
she obeyed our orders, and wrote, purposely *veiling* some of her
facts---that now, when WE think the time has arrived to give most of, if
not the *whole* truth---that she has to be left in the lurch?. . ."
ML, 285  Caps added.

And I repeat the quotes I first gave a few days ago:

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 DOCTRINE from which you quoted,
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!!!

[PAUL, THIS QUOTE ON MARS/MERCURY IS VERY APPROPRIATE/RELEVANT TO HPB'S
PARAGRAPH WHICH YOU ONLY PARTIALLY QUOTED.  READ THE LATTER PART OF THAT
PARAGRAPH IN HPB'S PREFACE. . . . AGAIN SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO RELY ON
PERSONAL SPECULATION.  SHE CAN ASK KOOT HOOMI AND MORYA, AS SHE DID ON
THE MARS/MERCURY QUESTION.]

IN SUMMARY:  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.

I will stop quoting since I could literally give hundreds of quotations
from HPB's writings and the Masters' letters on this same CONSISTENT
THEME.  Koot Hoomi and his brother adepts had an Esoteric Doctrine and
they allowed H P Blavatsky to give out portions of it, etc.  HP
Blavatsky didn't have to rummage through various old writings and try to
divine what might or might not have been various occult truths.  She had
direct access to these teachings from her own personal Master and from
several others of the much doubted Occult Brotherhood.

ONE SIDE NOTE:  What is HPB attempting to do when she quotes from
hundreds of various books, etc in her writings?  Paul, you apparently
have some OTHER strange misconception concerning her reason for quoting
all these sources.  I won't go into an analysis of this at this time BUT
IT CERTAINLY NEEDS TO BE GONE INTO.

Soon I want to try to go back and deal with Jerry Schueler's comments on
the alleged improbability of the existence of the Occult Brotherhood as
described by HPB, Olcott, Damodar, M., KH. and others.  I also need to
do part II of my essay dealing with the more than 30 persons who have
claimed (after HPB's death) to be HPB's successor and the new messenger
of the Masters. Thanks to Govert and Bjorn for your initial comments.

Daniel Caldwell