Theos-Talk Archives (December 1999 Message tt00009)

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.