To Tom Re: Theos-World IN DENIAL: A.P. Sinnett and "Planetary Chains."
Jul 05, 2010 07:32 PM
Here is Vladimir's reply to what you wrote:
I cannot claim to know exactly what K.H. or Mr.Sinnett did or did not think about any subject, all I could do and did was to analyze texts they left behind and make conclusions I made in this little article about the meaning of the texts themselves, not about the way they were understood by anyone (which can only be suspected). By this "meaning" I mean the way the text should have been understood by an average English-speaking person acquainted with all the previous correspondence between Mr.Sinnett and K.H. and thus keeping in mind the terms they agreed to use up to the point in time under scrutiny. Whatever Mr.Sinnett actually had in mind while writing his words is irrelevant given the words themselves and their meaning accepted by both parties before. If he meant not what he wrote (as he explained later), that was his own fault, and his later explanation has nothing to do with K.H.'s reply then. Tom Robertson says: "What matters is how K. H. understood his question and what he answered, which was clearly to say that Mars and Mercury were part of the Earth's chain, not just part of the same Solar System." But this is just a statement which needs to be proven by Tom Robertson (since Mr.Sinnett failed to do so, as shown in the article). The object of the article was (partly) precisely to show, and to do it as plainly as possible (I'm sorry, if it turned out to be somewhat heavily-worded), that this was not the K.H.'s answer, but Mr.Sinnett's peculiar interpretation of the latter, to which he stuck throughout the rest of his life (and probably crammed down Mr.Leadbeater's mind, however "clairvoyant" the latter may have been), despite further clarifications given by and through H.P.Blavatsky. I invite anyone, including Tom Robertson, to prove me wrong (unfortunately, the word "clearly" does not prove anything) and let the general public decide.
I hope, this is the last time I am replying to theos-talk (to which I'm not subscribed anyway) regarding this article. It would be better if those who disagree with it just prove their point without my participation. It may be hard, but with my participation it would surely be even harder. :)
Hope this helps.
> I've studied this article a reasonable amount of time and I still
> don't understand a few things. Maybe its thought is a level deeper
> than I'm capable of and maybe if I studied it more, I'd understand,
> but I thought I'd ask about it, anyway. It says that Mr. Sinnett did
> not understand why K. H. understood his question to be about the
> Earth's chain rather than the Solar System. Why would Mr. Sova write
> this when Mr. Sinnett made it clear that that's what he was asking
> about? He said it would be absurd to take his question as being about
> the Solar System. Mr. Sova suspects there is a discrepancy between
> what Mr. Sinnett asked and what he meant to ask, but I don't see the
> relevance of that. What matters is how K. H. understood his question
> and what he answered, which was clearly to say that Mars and Mercury
> were part of the Earth's chain, not just part of the same Solar
> System. Am I missing something?
> In case an introduction is appropriate for someone who hasn't posted
> in a long time, I was active in the Seattle lodge of the T. S. (Adyar)
> for a few years more than 10 years ago and used to subscribe and
> occasionally post to this list, but was unsubscribed, due to
> inactivity, I assume, a few years ago. I seem to go through phases of
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application