Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00456)

Zack,

Thanks for all of your recent posts. 

I want to comment on a paragraph you wrote in your latest post. 
First I give the paragraph:

"What I do not understand in this ongoing verbal war between some 
followers of HPB and some followers of AAB is why there is a war at 
all. In both HPB's and AAB's writings, I have personally found some 
words to be inspiring, other words that I have disagreed with, other 
words that I have not understood, and still other words that I have 
found, for me, to be unimportant and a waste of my time. I am sure 
that there are areas of disagreement between HPB and AAB, but I have 
found many areas of agreement. I am grateful that I have had access 
to both sets of writings. I agree with both HPB and AAB when they say 
that truth (or Theosophy) is ineffable, that all words are at best 
symbols of truth, but not the truth itself. So, why are we so 
fanatical about sets of words that, sooner or later, we will
outgrow and relinquish?" 

Zack, this paragraph got me pondering on various things and I want to 
share some of those ponderings.

You write:

"In both HPB's and AAB's writings, I have personally found some words 
to be inspiring. . . ."

Yet in Nicholas' critique of Alice Bailey's teaching (which 
apparently started the current "verbal war"), he specifically wrote:

"This short piece is not about whether Bailey's writings are 
inspiring, wonderful or contain any truth; but simply whether HPB and 
AAB had the same mentors, as claimed by Bailey."

Zack, you write:

"What I do not understand in this ongoing verbal war between some 
followers of HPB and some followers of AAB is why there is a war at 
all."

It appears that you do not like "verbal wars" but as a longtime 
student of HPB's writings, it seems evident to me that HPB and her 
Teachers were engaged almost constantly in a "verbal war" with many 
of the dominant IDEAS of the time. Throughout HPB's voluminous 
writings she is, in effect, making a frontal "attack" on many of the 
IDEAS of exoteric Christianity, materialistic science, the erroneous 
ideas of Spiritualism, other exoteric religions including Buddhism, 
pseudo-Occultism, etc. 

Zack, you also comment:

"I agree with both HPB and AAB when they say that truth (or 
Theosophy) is ineffable, that all words are at best symbols of truth, 
but not the truth itself. So, why are we so fanatical about sets of 
words that, sooner or later, we will outgrow and relinquish?" 

Sets of words?? I think that our attention should be focused on not 
the words but the IDEAS, TEACHINGS, CONCEPTS, THEMES behind the 
words. It appears to me from reading and studying HPB's and the 
Master's writings that they were very much concerned with the IDEAS 
of Theosophy.

So when you write: "why are we so fanatical about sets of words 
that, sooner or later, we will outgrow and relinquish?", were the 
Masters and HPB also "fanatical" about sets of words?

I ask you to ponder on the following:

I have quoted this several times before but please bear with me. In 
HPB's E.S. Instruction I, she warns her esoteric students:

". . . A new and rapidly growing danger. . . is threatening . . . the 
spread of the pure Esoteric Philosophy and knowledge. . . . I 
allude to those charlatanesque imitations of Occultism and 
Theosophy. . . . By pandering to the prejudices of people, and 
especially by adopting the false ideas of a personal God and a 
personal, carnalized Saviour, as the groundwork of their teaching, 
the leaders of this 'swindle' (for such it is) are endeavoring to 
draw men to them and in particular to turn Theosophists from the true 
path."

". . . A close examination will assuredly reveal. . . materials 
largely stolen . . . from Theosophical writings. . . [and] distorted 
and falsified so as to be palmed off on the unwary as revelations of 
new and undreamed of truths. But many will neither have the time nor 
the opportunity for such a thorough investigation; and before they 
become aware of the imposture they may be led far from the 
Truth. . . . Nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the 
garbled and distorted versions disfigured to suit the prejudices and 
tastes of men in general."

Zack, do you think HPB herself was being "fanatical about sets of 
words"? I'm sure that the "leaders of this 'swindle'" (if they ever 
became aware of HPB's words) would have considered HPB's words as 
harsh, fanatical, etc.!

Notice HPB's words:

". . . A close examination will assuredly reveal. . . materials 
largely stolen . . . from Theosophical writings [and] distorted and 
falsified so as to be palmed off on the unwary as revelations of new 
and undreamed of truths."

Zack if you had been living in 1889, would you have deplored the 
harsh language used by HPB? Would you have written the following?

"In both HPB's and the leaders' writings, I have personally found 
some words to be inspiring, other words that I have disagreed with, 
other words that I have not understood, and still other words that I 
have found, for me, to be unimportant and a waste of my time. I am 
sure that there are areas of disagreement between HPB and the 
leaders, but I have found many areas of agreement. I am grateful that 
I have had access to both sets of writings." 

But in HPB's excerpt above, she seems to be quite concerned about the 
FALSE IDEAS of a personal God and a personal, carnalized Saviour. 
Notice that she speaks of IDEAS and in this case labels certain ideas 
as FALSE when compared to GENUINE THEOSOPHY.

Notice again what she writes:

"Nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the garbled and 
distorted versions disfigured to suit the prejudices and tastes of 
men in general."

Here again she is concerned with "Esoteric Truth" and warns about the 
GARBLED and DISTORTED versions.

Was HPB being "fanatical about sets of words that, sooner or later, 
we will outgrow and relinquish?" 

Let us now look at another excerpt from HPB's writings. In THE 
SECRET DOCTRINE, HPB wrote:

"The publication of many of the facts herein stated has been rendered 
necessary by the wild and fanciful speculation in which many 
Theosophists and students of mysticism have indulged, during the last 
few years. . . ." Vol I, p. viii 

Here again she is concerned with IDEAS. . . . this time WILD and 
FANCIFUL IDEAS and SPECULATION.

Was HPB being "fanatical about sets of words that, sooner or later, 
we will outgrow and relinquish?"

Also notice what Master KH said about HPB's writing of the SD:

"Every mistake or erroneous notion, corrected and explained by her 
from the works of other theosophists was corrected by me, or under my 
instruction." 

Here it appears to me that KH is concerned about NOTIONS, IDEAS. And 
states that certain NOTIONS were ERRONEOUS....MISTAKEN IDEAS.

Was KH being "fanatical about sets of words that, sooner or later, we 
will outgrow and relinquish?"

Again let me quote Master KH:

"I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by 
Mr. H[ume]. I read his three essays or chapters on God (?) cosmogony 
and glimpses of the origin of things in general, and had to cross out 
nearly all. He makes of us Agnostics!! We do not believe in God 
because so far, we have no proof, etc. This is preposterously 
ridiculous: if he publishes what I read, I will have H.P.B. or Djual 
Khool deny the whole thing; as I cannot permit our sacred philosophy 
to be so disfigured. He says that people will not accept the whole 
truth; that unless we humour them with a hope that there may be 
a 'loving Father and creator of all in heaven' our philosophy will be 
rejected a priori. In such a case the less such idiots hear of our 
doctrines the better for both. If they do not want the whole truth 
and nothing but the truth, they are welcome. But never will they find 
us -- (at any rate) -- compromising with, and pandering to public 
prejudices." The Mahatma Letters, 2nd ed., Letter 54 

Master KH appears to me to be quite concerned with IDEAS. 

Zack if you had read Mr. Hume's three essays you might "have 
personally found some words to be inspiring." Maybe even I would 
have. But notice that KH is concerned about Mr. Hume presenting 
ERRONEOUS IDEAS about Theosophy to the public. He writes:

". . . if he publishes what I read, I will have H.P.B. or Djual Khool 
deny the whole thing; as I cannot permit our sacred [Esoteric, 
Theosophical] philosophy to be so disfigured." 

DISFIGURED IDEAS?

Was KH being "fanatical about sets of words that, sooner or later, we 
will outgrow and relinquish?"

Moving on....

Master KH wrote to Mrs. Holloway:

"Your vivid creative fancy evokes illusive Gurus and chelas, and puts 
into their mouths words coined the instant before in the mint of your 
mind, unknown to yourself. The false appear as real, as the true, and 
you have no exact method of detection since you are yet prone to 
force your communications to agree with your preconceptions. . . . "

Notice KH's words: "The false appear as real, as the true. . . " 

And in a letter to Mr. Sinnett, KH commented:

Her [Mrs. Holloway's] surexcited fancy, putting a mask on every stray 
spook, created the 'Student' and made him serve her purpose and 
desire. She believed in it sincerely. . . . Try to save "Man" [the 
book "Man: Fragments of a Forgotten History"] by looking it over 
with Mohini, and by erasing from it the alleged inspirations and 
dictation by 'Student.' " 

Quoted from:
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-64.htm 

Zack if you had read this unedited book you might "have personally 
found some words to be inspiring" among "the alleged inspirations and 
dictation by 'Student.'" But it appears that KH was again concerned 
about ERRONEOUS IDEAS being presented to the public.

Was KH being "fanatical about sets of words that, sooner or later, we 
will outgrow and relinquish?"

Many more examples could be given.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc