Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00238)

August 15th 1998

Dear Daniel:

Thank you for the quotations you offer in defense of what HPB wrote and came
to do for us on behalf of the Brotherhood of the Adepts.

As you say she and the Adepts have repeatedly stated that They were jointly
responsible for the material that was offered to modern students of
Theosophy from their stores and libraries.

One of the great barriers as I see it is the unwillingness to admit the
possibility that resident in each human is an immortal Entity -- a "spark"
of the ONE SPIRIT.  One wonders why this should be so difficult a point to
investigate.  Are we, have we, been psychologized by our environment and
education into believing that we are only "mortals" ?  And where do the
powers of our egoity, thinking, willing and determination arise from ?  Why
are we all so different, and yet so similar in terms of the general make-up
of our equipment and tools ?

As you say she is very clear as to her sources and the existence of the
Adepts.  There is still more that can be added to the quotes you offer which
can be culled from her LETTERS TO A. P. SINNETT a book edited also by Trevor
Barker and published as a companion to MAHATMA LETTERS.  In a number of her
articles, as also in her answers to queries by students one finds that she
undeviatingly attributes to the Adepts the wisdom and knowledge that she
offers.

It is not the first time that HPB has been accused of concocting Theosophy
out of a collation of such information as might have been available
scattered through the learned libraries of hundreds of Universities and
special Associations (such as the ASIATIC SOCIETY) -- but, has anyone been
able to grasp the enormity of such a task, or the fact that to memorize the
enormous number of details and quotations so as to bring them on to paper
without ready references at hand is in itself a feat.

I say:  If anyone ventures to criticize HPB and her work, or question the
scholarship and wisdom of the Adepts, let those who do this fist write an SD
or even an ISIS -- or even a simple article, that demonstrates their ability
to be philosophically eclectic and innovative.  Then we may bow to their
greater ability, and take their criticism to be fair.

I say this also in reference to those who from time to time quote more
recent "messages" from named 'High Sources.'  Let such wisdom as may be
inherent, and the necessity of the time and place, show up through those
writings and statements. And that is all that we need, not names or
authorities.  WE can determine ourselves how valuable they are and if they
are necessary.

Say what one will, if one desires to learn about Theosophy ( I mean its
rationale, philosophy, basis and psychology ) HPB has offered us adequate
demonstrations and proofs of the actual existence of such information.  The
KEY TO THEOSOPHY is a relatively short text, and it should not be so
expensive as to our valuable time that we do not read and seek to understand
it.

If we do not study it, then indeed that which we may write may prove to very
speculative.  Our apparently unwillingness to read and learn about the
nature of
THEOSOPHY does offer a question:  Why is that so ?  Who loses?.  Who is the
worse off as a result ?  If these exchanges are to be of mutual benefit,
then a similarity of learning would greatly help and shorten such exchanges
so that we all would be aiming at a deeper, rather than a more superficial
and argumentative type of cooperation.

Best wishes to you, as always,

Dallas

> Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 11:50 AM
> From: "Daniel H Caldwell" <blafoun@azstarnet.com>
> Subject: Re: HPB sides with Kym against Dallas

>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
>
>
>