271
Fortunately for the occult science of the ancients such a distinction does not exist. I am obliged therefore to repudiate the specific motives and intentions attributed to me and frankly confess that the difference of opinion between us is not merely apparent but real. Such being the case I am fully prepared to justify my assertions.
Any farther discnssion of the subject will of course be out of the question if it is asserted that I am not at liberty to question the correctness of the so-called "original teachings." Some have argued, it would appear, that a slur was thrown on "the original teachings" by my remarks, thereby implying that I had no business to make them and contradict these teachings. The author of the article probably endorses this view, as she virtually informs her readers in the footnote on page 450, that they must either adopt the seven-fold classification or give up their adherence "to the old School of Aryan and Arhat adepts." I am indeed very sorry that she thought it proper to assume this uncompromising attitude.
It is now necessary to examine what these "original teachings" are and how far they mast be considered as conclusive on the subject. The "original teachings" on the subject in question first made their appearance in an editorial headed "Fragments of Occult Truth" published in the issue of the Theosophist for October 1881. They were subsequently referred to in various articles written by the Editor, and additional explanations have been given from time to time. These teachings were also embodied in Mr. Sinnett's "Esoteric Buddhism," which has been put forth as an authoritative book. They were farther alluded to in "Men," which has been considered equally authoritative, but whose teachings are materially inconsistent with those of "Esoteric Buddhism."
As far as I am in a position to see, these are the authorities on which these so-called "Original teachings" have their foundation.
