--- Begin Message ---
Well, so many comments were made and questions asked that I do not know
if I can get around to all of them or not. Here goes.
Compiler: "If we must study the very difficult book, "The Secret
Doctrine", in the way we are doing it here, and do not at the same time
have another forum going which is studying "The Ocean of Theosophy",
this is, in my opinion, the perfect way to chase away droves of new
inquirers who drop by from all over the world."
Hear! Hear! I could not have said it better myself.
Dallas: "We here in the "West" have a tendency to discount
scholarship in any other part of the world."
Please do not include me in that category. I am one of those who, as
you say, "desire information that is eclectic," and have said so
before. It may have been true of Max Mueller, who as you know never
went to India. This was a criticism leveled against him by the
Founders, although we must respect his learning.
I am afraid I cannot agree with you that "books by Charles Fort and
Emmanuel Velikovsky ought to be read" at all, let alone "again with
greater attention." Double that for "Von Daningen." These are not
careful or even sensible authors, although I enjoy Fort's books just as
fun reading. Just an opinion.
It would be fair to have said 150 years ago that "Egyptologists ...
have adopted a series of time frames ... largely based
on early 19th century Christian views (or dogma)," but I do not believe
this would be a fair comment on modern Egyptology. Religion no longer
rules, either in anthropology or geology. Whether or not we agree on
this depends on which era you are referring to.
Dallas AND THIS "MESSENGER" MAY HAVE COME, DONE THEIR WORK AND LEFT
UNNOTICED BY THOSE WHO WERE SO OCCUPIED WITH FINDING FAULT WITH THE
MESSAGE OF HPB THAT THEY COULD NOT GIVE TIME TO RECOGNIZE THAT COMING
OR THAT WORK.
As I said in an earlier e-mail, I doubt the messenger was ignored, but
there were SO MANY "messengers" in that time frame that he is hard to
identify. Here are the facts:
The prediction was that the messenger would appear in the last quarter
of the century – i.e., from about 1974 to 1999.
1975 was a banner year for this type of activity. As I recall,
NEWSWEEK devoted a cover story to that fact in one of their 1975
issues.
Here are some opinions:
It seems to me to satisfy the prediction, the messenger must not have
arrived significantly outside the predicted time frame. That rules out
Steiner, Leadbeater, Bailey, Roerich, Max Heindel, H. Spencer Lewis,
and Einstein. This is not a criticism of anyone – just a statement
that the time frame is wrong. It also seems to rule out later
candidates, such as the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who did quite well in
1975, but who first came to the United States in 1959.
Also to satisfy the prediction, it would seem to me the messenger would
have to disclose something that had been known for centuries but kept
secret. There are two possible candidates in my judgement, out of the
crowd of possible candidates:
One possibility is Hawaiian shamanism, otherwise known as Huna. The
Polynesian rulers of Hawaii made this practice illegal in 1820.
Amazingly, despite the constitutional protection, this ruling remained
in force until 1979, when it was finally overturned. Huna is ancient,
was brought to light in the correct time frame, and clarifies many
obscure points in Theosophy. The case for Huna is strengthened
somewhat by the claim of its adherents that it IS the primitive wisdom
religion. The case is weakened by the fact that Max Freedom Long, a
Theosophist who first brought knowledge of it to the mainland, came
along before 1975, and there were a few others, such as Clark
Wilkerson, who revealed a portion of the Juna knowledge before 1975.
Another possible candidate is ch'I kung (Chinese kundalini yoga), which
was kept strictly secret until the television series KUNG FU made kung
fu a commercial property. Grandmasters suddenly forgot their vows of
secrecy and told all, with the result that much formerly esoteric
knowledge became public property for the first time. This candidate
makes more sense geographically (Tibet is part of China) and very
little of ch'i kung was disclosed before 1975.
If anyone else can name any other candidates, I would be most
interested in their opinions. Please either dispute logically or
adhere to the qualifications mentioned above.
I said that Sanskrit scholarship dates back to 1820. I got this
statement from one of Max Mueller's books, but searching for your
answers I find it is also referenced by HPB herself in the SD, thus:
SD 1.xxxviii "About 1820, Prof. Max Muller tells us, the sacred books
of the Brahmans, of the Magians, and of the Buddhists, "were all but
unknown, their very existence was doubted, and there was not a single
scholar who could have translated a line of the Veda ... of the Zend
Avesta, or ... of the Buddhist Tripitaka.'" ... (Lecture on the Vedas).
This reference in the SD is accurate, by the way. I have read
Mueller's book myself.
Bear in mind that a statement of fact is not the same thing as a
criticism. Some of the statements published on this site seem to have
confused the two. A criticism is an opinion which belongs to the
sub-class of opinions known popularly as judgements, whereas a fact is
simply a fact. It is a fact that Sanskrit scholarship in the West
started in circa 1820 as HPB herself said, and not 250 years ago and
not in the 20th century, as has been suggested.
Now for an opinion: It is evident on reflection that had Sanskrit
scholarship not occurred, the SD either would not have been written, or
would have taken a very different form than that in which we now have
it. I don't see how it could be otherwise, but that is, nonetheless,
an opinion.
In reference to my statement that HPB "says part of her motivation for
writing the SD was to dispute with Rhys Davids and Mueller, et al."
Dallas asked "IS IT POSSIBLE TO GIVE AN ACCURATE REFERENCE TO THIS
PLEASE ?"
Please peruse the following, which is accurate:
SD 1.xxi-xxii: "Toward the end of the first quarter of this century, a
distinct class of literature appeared in the world, which became with
every year more defined in its tendency. Being based, soi disant, on
the scholarly researches of Sanskritists and Orientalists in general,
it was held scientific. Hindu, Egyptian, and other ancient religions,
myths, and emblems were made to yield anything the symbologist wanted
them to yield, thus often giving out the rude outward form in place of
the inner meaning. Works ... of more than one Sanskrit and Pali scholar
appeared rapidly in succession, over flooding the libraries with
dissertations rather on phallic and sexual worship than on real
symbology, and each contradicting the other."
"This is the true reason, perhaps, why the outline of a few fundamental
truths from the Secret Doctrine of the Archaic ages is now permitted to
see the light, after long millenniums of the most profound silence and
secrecy."
I assume this is what you were referring to. If you were challenging
my statement that "Max Mueller was publishing his SACRED BOOKS OF THE
EAST series, and Rhys Davids was translating sutras before HPB
published the SD" (I am just covering all the bases here) you can
verify that statement in any large public library.
Another motive for publishing the book was given in SD 1.viii: "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."
Dallas, commenting on my statements regarding the motives for
publishing the SD: "WE LACK THAT PERSPECTIVE. WE ALSO CANNOT IMPUTE
THE SAGES OF THE EAST OUR LIMITED VIEWS AS TO THE MOTIVE FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF THE SD."
Actually, all the statements I made were following Blavatsky herself,
as can be seen by reading her writings. Please reference the
paragraphs above, and the following:
SD 1.xxx Refers to "those learned writers, who have insisted for the
last century or so that there must have been 'fragments of a primeval
revelation, granted to the ancestors of the whole race of mankind ...
preserved in the temples of Greece and Italy.'"
This clearly states that the primitive wisdom religion hypothesis was
laid out by Western writers approximately a century before the SD was
published. It can be found in Godfrey Higgins' ANACLYPSIS, for one,
which was cited with approval by HPB in ISIS UNVEILED. She even got
the name of her book from Higgins, who subtitled his work THE UNVEILING
OF THE SAITIC ISIS. This is not a coincidence, since ISIS was
originally intended to be a new ANACLYPSIS, just as the SD was
originally intended to be a new ISIS. Both books evolved after she
started writing them, and came out differently than she had originally
intended.
I have been unable to establish for sure when the primitive wisdom
religion idea first made its way into western scholarship, but I
believe the "century or so" date given by HPB is correct, since it was
in 1785 that Sir William Jones discovered that Sanskrit was
linguistically related to the European languages. This led to the
hypothesis of the Great Aryan Migration, in which peoples from northern
India were believed to have migrated to Europe and settled there. This
notion became the gern of the Fifth Race hypothesis in the SD, in which
it was the Fifth Race which migrated westward. Western scholars have
since modified their thesis to suggest that it was in Anatolia (Turkey)
that the migration started, and that it was to East and West from
Anatolia - thus the term "Indo-European languages." Sanskrit and the
European languages are therefore hypothesized to have both derived from
the Indo-European. I am not qualified to evaluate the scientific
evidence for this contention, but it makes me suspicious, since it was
in that vicinity that Noah is said to have found dry land. This seems
to me to be an attempt to harmonize the facts with certain legends
which are important to some and not to others. There was an earlier
attempt by the same crowd to argue, on sentimental gronds, that Hebrew
must be the oldest language in the world - much older than Sanskrit.
That may be true, but it should be established on scientific grounds,
not on a sentimental basis. (On this point I have to agree with one of
Dallas' statements, quoted earlier.) I am inclined to go with the
earlier hypothesis of a migration westward from India, which was the
one accepted by HPB. Anyway, I think you can see that the historical
background of this argument makes the allusions and references in the
SD much more meaningful.
She goes on to say that "this is what all the Eastern Initiates and
Pundits have been proclaiming to the world from time to time." Given
that the Eastern mystics notoriously could not care less about the West
(a fact which was noted in the Mahatma Letters as well as in
non-Theosophical sources) I suspect "from time to time" means from time
to time during the 19th century. I think this is a reasonable
interpretation, given the facts. I suspect the Eastern mystics became
aware of the primitive wisdom religion hypothesis as promulgated by
Western scholars, and it resonated with them because (1) it proposed
that India was the origin of Western civilizaion, (2) it was
Indo-centric, in other words, in a world otherwise strongly
Euro-centric, (3) from a purely psychological point of view, an
Indo-centric theory would have been important to them in an era when
they were under domination of an openly contemptuous foreign Power, (4)
it seemed to fit in well with, and confirm, some of their own
traditions regarding the ancient antediluvian peoples and how
civilization had to be rebuilt after the Deluge, and (5) there is solid
scientific evidence that the theory is true.
Dallas: Avalokiteshwara is their [i.e., the dhyani Buddhas'] SYNTHESIS
Blofeld wrote an interesting monograph on Avalokitesvara (known in
China as Kuan Yin) in which he traced the origins of that sect in
legend and myth. In the course of his research Blofeld became
convinced that Avalokitesvara is a real spiritual being, and he became
a devotee of that deity. Nonetheless, he shows that the Avalokitesvara
sect is not ancient, and was therefore not a part of the primitive
wisdom religion, although here, too, the ancients may have had an
analogous idea. Please note that last phrase. My personal suspicion
is that the primitive wisdom religion was much more primitive than the
system outlined in the SD, which is not primitive at all, but quite
sophisticated. That is just an opinion and presented as such. I also
suspect that both systems contain a good deal of truth.
Dallas: "Our whole history of the review of antiquity has been hampered
if not shackled by the Christian Theological view of the past."
That is true of 150 years ago and before. I do not believe it is a
fair statement regarding the modern situation.
Daniel: "Who said that the 1888 edition contains bloopers due to
editorial error? And do you have some good examples of these bloopers?
To make these vague assertions without giving some specifics doesn't
help students of the SD."
Well, I recall reading that the editors did not understand the special
significance given by HPB to the words "kosmic" and "cosmic" and that
they used these two words (which have different meanings) as if they
were synonyms. Thus "kosmic" may appear where "cosmic" should have
been used, and v.v. This was represented as an error of the editors and
not the original author, so anyone who wishes to revere HPB should not
be disturbed by this. There were also other errors of editorial origin
referenced as I recall. Unfortunately, I do not have my blooper
scooper handy, and cannot give a complete list. I have discovered
statements in the book which I suspect MAY be editorial errors, since
there seems to be no way of reconciling them with other statements.
Reed mentioned what he thought was a typo in a previous e-mail. Why
this would be harmful to students of the SD is a mystery to me. It
does force us to think and critically examine what we read, and to
search out the underlying meanings in these texts, which is, I think,
what the author had in mind.
It seems to me on one point we have failed to make an important
distinction. I think Leon is mistaken when he insists that Leadbeater
edited and revised the SD, but suppose he is right. Personally, I
don't care if Leadbeater made 40,000 changes or 400,000 changes, so
long as we have the option of referring to the original version. (It
would have been more "Theosophical" if Leadbeater had made exactly
432,000 changes.) Ditto with Mead's changes. I don't care, just as
long as I can ignore them completely and study the original. The ONLY
thing that seems important to me is that (1) we do not have the
original MS, and (2) the 1888 edition has passed through
who-knows-how-many editorial hands – all of them anonymous. Dallas
suggests even the hands of G. de Purucker and Boris Zirkoff are in
there somewhere – once again, anonymously. I am sure you agree, this
esoteric broth has had too many cooks.
Further, I agree with Dallas that "the corrections ought not to have
been inserted in the text without the invariable notation by those
editors so that the student would have the option of seeing the HPB
ORIGINAL, and also, the comments by subsequent editors, who proposed a
change. Footnotes would have served to do this, or 'end notes' if the
explanations were lengthy."
The amendments should have been clearly marked, or, as is correct
editorial procedure, enclosed in square brackets ([]) so they could be
clearly distinguished from the original text.
The availability or unavailability of the original seems to me to be
the only real issue. Everything else is moot. That someone might want
to attempt a simplified interpretation does not matter, so long as we
have access to the original, unedited and unmodified, which we do not.
Nonetheless, we have what we have.
There is another point that is relevant here. There are numerous
passages in which HPB makes it quite clear that she did not wish to be
regarded as a Theosophical prelate or pope, and her writings were not
to be regarded as infallible. Somewhere – I forget where, but it was
in one of her books – she says she could not do our thinking for us.
Now of course she could have, were she inclined to represent her every
utterance as not-to-be-questioned. What I think she means is, that she
WOULD NOT do our thinking for us. So the person who threatened anyone
who would try to make sense out of her work, or re-state it in simpler
terms with vile karma may be right. I am not saying that he is wrong.
But his position is not supported by the texts themselves. There are
no such threats in the Mahatma Letters or the writings of HPB. The SD
itself was extensively edited and revised (which I wish it had not
been) prior to first publication in 1888, and the same was true of
ISIS.
Danel: "Yes, I'd like to know where Leon got his information that C.W.
Leadbeater edited or revised the SD. What is this based on? I'm always
amazed at how some students of Blavatsky works come up with such
"facts".
I'm with you, Daniel. Leon, can you help us on this one? Is there
such a reference?
SS
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
---
Current topic is at http://www.blavatsky.net/members/bnstudy/syllabus.htm
You are currently subscribed to bn-study as: [gfdrucker@webtv.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-bn-study-2417564Y@lists.lyris.net
--- End Message ---
