Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00641)

Carlos,

Thank you for your reply.   

Let me see if I understand your argument and if
it will hold up when closely looked at and examined.

You say I am "mistaking the public and the private"?

Let us start by going back to the pledge HPB sent
to all individuals who wanted to join her esoteric school.

See:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/espage3.htm

Notice #7:

"I pledge myself to preserve inviolable secresy as regards the signs 
and pass-words of the Section and all confidential documents.

"So help me, my Higher Self."

And focusing in:

"I pledge myself to preserve INVIOLABLE SECRESY as regards . . . all 
confidential documents." caps added

And on page 2 of the same document, it reads in part about 
preserving:

"The Secrecy of the documents of the Section . . . unless absolved 
from such secrecy by the Head of the Section."

So now let us take this argument by Carlos about, well, about 
circulating privately [to new people] the esoteric documents of HPB.

Let's say Carlos had lived back in 1888 and had taken this pledge 
and joined HPB's esoteric school.

And then let us suppose that Carlos gets the idea that he wants to 
share the E.S. documents with a few close friends.  Mind you, Carlos 
isn't going to publish them publicly, that is, print copies and sell 
them through, let us say, a public bookstore, he is just going to 
circulate them privately to a few friends.  He may only let them 
borrow his copy and read the instructions or he may write out 
portions of the whole instruction or even let the friend borrow it 
who then writes out either portions of or the whole instruction.

But the question is:  Is Carlos actually preserving "inviolable 
secresy" regarding these documents when he does these things?  
Notice in the example I gave Carlos is NOT publicly circulating 
copies, but only privately circulating his copy or extracts or maybe 
even a complete handwritten copy of his printed copy to chosen 
individuals.  But again is he actually preserving "inviolable 
secresy" by doing such things and furthermore was he "absolved from 
such secrecy by the Head of the Section"?

And in this example what if later HPB discovered that Carlos was 
doing the above, what would she say and do?

I give the above example because there are similar cases and 
historical material from 1888-1891 relating to this very issue.

As I read the pledge and related material, the pledge is binding for 
life. Even HPB says this in several documents.

See also the document titled "Book of Rules", reprinted on pp. 285-
286 of THE ESOTERIC PAPERS OF MADAME BLAVATSKY. See:
http://esotericpapers.net/

Here we find that esoteric students were NOT to COMMUNICATE them 
[certain documents] to anyone not already in the esoteric school.

Furthermore, no member was to DISCUSS the teachings given in the 
E.S. or DISCUSS any of its confidential documents with outsiders.

So would Carlos have being abiding by his pledge [see above] by 
PRIVATELY circulating copies of these E.S. documents to NEW people 
who were not already members of the E.S.?

Food for thought.

I will write more on this later and give some more examples.

Daniel
htpp://hpb.cc














 

 


Dear Friends,

Daniel writes, see below:

"But the question remains:  WHO gave permission or authorization to 
ULT or DES or to particular DES officials over many decades to 
circulate to new peopleHPB's  esoteric writings???  And consider 
this:  Mr. Crosbie died in 1919. So in
the last 87 years on whose  authority was the esoteric instructions 
of HPB given
to new people?"

My answer:

Carlos,

Thank you for your reply.   

Let me see if I understand your argument and if
it will hold up when closely looked at and examined.

The possible private circulation of the same texts in any inner 
school, be it
Pasadena TS- related, ULT- related or  Adyar TS-related, is 
naturally  a private
subject, since it is not public and not commercial.



The publication by A. Besant of the Esoteric Teachings of HPB as 
part of a book
commercially sold -- "The Secret Doctrine"  was obviously a publica 
matter,
since the book was public.

The possible private circulation of the same texts in any inner 
school, be it
Pasadena TS- related, ULT- related or  Adyar TS-related, is 
naturally  a private
subject, since it is not public and not commercial.

So Daniel is mistaking the public and the private.

Since time immemorial there has been secret, or semi-secret, that 
is, ESOTERIC
teachings.

Being esoteric, these teachings are not discussed publically.

Daniel is trying to deny esoteric tradition and philosophy the right 
to keep its
teachings to students who have a commitement to it, and a commitment 
to try to
live these teachings in their lives.

I would like you friends to consider that, precisely because inner 
shools are
inner - and they have a right to that - they will not come to the 
internet to
aswer, in detail, to anskers and inuendos made by Daniel Caldwell 
(or by any of
the alias he uses to use).

Rosicrucians, masons, etc., have also been abused for centuries.

Now, as to the specific question  made by Daniel, on "WHO GAVE 
AUTHORIZATION",
etc, a general, but entirely true answer is the obne I have already 
given:

There is no authority in Occultis outside one's Heart and Conscience.

No authentic school of Theosophy, be it "esoteric" or "exoteric", 
will ever have
an authority higher than one's Heart.  The Masters, in their 
Letters, repeatedly
state that they respect the autonomy of each learner.

In the collection of the magazine "Theosophy", which is edited by 
ULT members,
one can see several articles against the idea of lineal 
apostolic "succession of
authority", which lead to the formation of "religious" bureaucracies.

Yet  the idea of the inner authority of one's own heart being 
supreme is
fortunately very much alive in the Adyar TS, and, I am sure, also 
very much
alive in the Pasadena TS.

Outer authority and status symbol can be found in the CWL's 
misdoings (first
half of 20th century) and in the Vatican.

Best regards,  Carlos Cardoso Aveline.