Theos-Talk Archives (December 1999 Message tt00011)

Dec 11th 1999

Dear Asana:

Thank you for this additional view concerning the material that
HPB and the Masters have offered us to consider.

I particularly liked the last paragraph.

Best wishes,

Dallas

=============================

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com
[mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of
ASANAT@aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 4:39 PM
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: Rich Taylor's accusations against
HPB


JRC:

I just read (very belatedly) your excellent response to Rich
Taylor's
accusations against HPB.  Unfortunately, I haven't had the chance
to read RT
yet.  But I have read quite a number of such over the years
(indluding
several book-length ones), and have always found them totally
unconvincing,
for any of a number of reasons.  You have expressed some of those
very
clearly (and brilliantly, I think) in your response.  I'd just
like to add a
couple of points.

EVERYONE of those authors makes the assumption that there is no
such thing as
the perennial philosophy or ancient wisdom that has existed
throughout the
ages, and by implications, perennial teachers.  In my mind, the
first thing
they MUST prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that there are no
such
teachers, and that there cannot be.  I say this because the very
notion of
such a teacher (one could think of Pythagoras or Nagarjuna)
plagiarizing is
so absurd, it can only be responded to with a jocular laugh.
These are the
CREATORS  (directly, or indirectly, as through agents and
disciples) of all
valuable aspects of human culture everywhere.

Another point, more along the lines of the response you gave, is
this:  The
perennial teaching, not being linear, is given in what HPB called
the "seven
keys" or modes of perceiving the same factors.  There is always a
multidimensional quality to the way it is presented.  One way in
which that
multidimensionality manifests itself is what invariably seems to
linear minds
to be a quality of "deception" in such work.  For those of you
who know some
astrology, it is a Neptunian quality, in which what is said is
"neither this,
nor that."  People with linear minds will always be suspicious of
genuine
perennial works for this reason:  They can only see an issue from
a purely
analytical perspective, and to them, it must make sense from only
that
perspective.  That attitude is precisely an important aspect of
what needs to
go if there is to be theosophy, which implies using other
dimensions of
awareness, a transformation.  In order to "do theosophy," there
MUST be
theosophical, or divine-like, states of awareness.  Otherwise it
is not
theosophy.

So in their writings one often finds all sorts of reasons for
being
"suspicious" if and to the extent that one insists on a linear
way of
receiving what the Masters say.  I believe they often
DELIBERATELY create a
suspicious atmosphere around what they say.  It is a way of
sifting out
anyone who doesn't belong in the Masters' universe of discourse.

A great example of HPB's "plagiarism," by the way, is the
beginning of The
Key to Theosophy.  I mention this in part because I have never
seen this
referred to anywhere, either by theosophists or by accusers of
HPB. Most of
it is word for word what Professor Alexander Wilder had written
in his work
on Platonism (published by Wizards).  HPB does mention Wilder in
the passage.
 But most of what she says there consists of a very slight
rearrangement of
what Wilder said, or outright "quoting" except without the use of
quotes or
attribution to him.  In my mind, a question about this, since I
discovered it
some years back (though not the only one), is:  Where did Wilder
get his
material from?

A related point is that, apart from VERY FEW fellow theosophists
over the
years (actually, I think two), I've never met anyone who's read
Wilder, or
knows of his existence.  Ditto for all the others who had been
"plagiarized"
by the Masters in their works given out under the signature of
HPB.  Why?
Why do we not know of these other people, but thousands upon
thousands know
of HPB?  Those of us who have gone into "her" work feel that we
understand
perfectly what you mean when you say that a hundred years from
now probably
no one will know who Rich Taylor was, but HPB's name and work
will still be
around.  THAT needs to be explaind by those who promote the
plagiarism
theory.  How come the likes of Nietzsche, Carl Jung, and Yeats
(just to
mention three out of a VERY long and very impressive list) paid
so much
attention to what she said, this presumed plagiarizer?  And how
come none of
the accusers have ever achieved any notoriety, except in such as
the present
context?  One answer that comes to mind is that none of the
accusers have
ever been CREATORS, like HPB.  They are more in the nature of
parasites or
leeches, who must live off of the liveblood of such CREATORS.
Having no
lasting contributions of their own to make, they get to have
their 15 minutes
of fame by sucking off the blood of some CREATOR.

With much affection to all,

Aryel;

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk --
theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting
of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.