Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00063)

Bjorn,

Let me jump into the middle of this discussion, since you have raised
some good issues.

I will ask you some questions in order to try to understand where you
are coming from.  Govert and others can also chime in!

I ASSUME that you believe/accept the basic, major claims of Madame H.P.
Blavatsky?  Some of these claims are:

That she was the messenger of a certain Association of Adepts and that
she was sent into the outer world to give out the ancient teachings of
Theosophia.

That she was in direct communication with these adepts, i.e. Morya, Koot
Hoomi and several other initiates.

That she was a tulku and the Mahatmas used her as an instrucment for
various purposes.

That Morya and Koot Hoomi and several other adepts either dictated or
wrote through her various portions of her writings especially Isis
Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine.

That these adepts were flesh and blood human beings and from time to
time visited Blavatsky, Henry Olcott and others either in the flesh or
in their Mayavi Rupas.

Do you accept any or all of these claims?  If you believe the above,
then consider the following:

H P Blavatsky wrote more than 10,000 pages on Theosophy, etc.  If we add
to this, hundreds of published/unpublished letters of HPB, the letters
of her Teachers as found in 3 published volumes and scattered in other
published/unpublished sources, if we add all the historical evidence
concerning HPB's life, her occult phenomena, testimony concerning her
Teachers (during HPB's lifetime), etc., we have literally thousands of
more pages of primary source material.

>From this multitude of sources, a serious inquirer/student should be
able to construct a pretty clear picture of what Blavatsky and her
Teachers taught, the nature of the relationship between Blavatsky and
her Teachers, what kind of Adept Association sponsored her work and what
it means to be an Initiate of this Association.  Do you agree with any
of this?

A SIDE NOTE:  Unfortunately, IMO, far too many students haven't taken
the time and effort to read and study all this material.  What a pity!

I am always encouraging those interested in Theosophy to go to
Blavatsky's writings and ready and study them.  Read enough of her
writings so that one can understand what she is attempting to convey,
etc.  Don't naively believe or disbelieve, don't accept or reject what
she writes, but try to UNDERSTAND what she is writing, what she is
attempting to convey.  How else can one come to know what any writer is
trying to convey through the medium of words.  Give Blavatsky a chance
to give her thesis, her case. . . .

If you believe what the Masters say in their letters, then HPB was a
very unique individual.  I'll quote just two extracts to illustrate this
statement.

"This state of hers [HPB's] is intimately connected with her occult
training in Tibet, and due to her being sent out alone into the world to
gradually prepare the way for others.  After nearly a century of
fruitless search, our chiefs had to avail themselves of the only
opportunity to send out a European *body*  upon European soil to serve
as a connecting link. . . ." Koot Hoomi in an 1881 letter to A.P.
Sinnett

". . . We employ agents---the best available.  Of these for the past
thirty years the chief [agent] has been the personality known as H.P.B.
to the world (but otherwise to us).  Imperfect and very troublesome, no
doubt, she proves to some, nevertheless, there is no likelihood of our
finding a better one for years to come---and your theosophists should be
made to understand it. . . . *With occult matters she has everything to
do.*  We have *not* abandoned her; she is *not* 'given over to chelas.
She is *our direct agent*. . . . I have also noted your thoughts about
'The Secret Doctrine'.  Be assured that what she has not *annotated*
from scientific and other works, we have given or *suggested* to her.
Every mistake or erroneous notion, corrected and explained by her from
the works of other theosophists *was corrected by me, or under my
instruction*.  It is a more valuable work than its predecessor, an
epitome of occult truths that will make it a source of information and
instruction for the earnest student for long years to come."

Extract from Koot Hoomi's letter to Henry Olcott, August 1888.  Olcott
received this letter in his cabin on board the S.S. Shannon which was
sailing on the Mediterrean  and heading for Brindisi, Italy.  Blavatsky
was at the time in London.

I could give more on this subject but will stop with these two extracts.

Do you accept what the Master KH says about HPB?

As I said at the beginning, I assume you probably accept most of the
above.  Maybe not.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  If would also be
helpful to know why you don't accept any of the above.

Now let us briefly consider HPB's infallibility.
She never claimed to be infallible.  Nor did her Teachers. But there is
a huge difference/gap between being infallible on the one hand and being
UNRELIABLE.

Also any person who takes the time and effort to read the 10,000+ pages
of Blavatsky's published writings can, more or less, determine what the
basic teachings of Theosophy are.  From her early
writings to her later ones, one can find definite *recurring* themes,
ideas, concepts, teachings (call them whatever).  And if you read the
letters of the Masters, especially THE MAHATMA LETTERS, you can identify
the same RECURRING teachings.  Do you agree with this?

So as David Green comments, we are not concerned with the infallibility
of HPB's writings and teachings, but with how reliable they are.  No,
HPB has no monopoly on the truth, but that doesn't mean that her
writings are unreliable nor does that necessarily mean that her books
are full of major errors of theosophical doctrine.

In Part II of this posting,I will deal with the following:

After Madame Blavatsky died, it is a historical fact that literally
dozens of people have claimed to be in contact with her Adepts and have
claimed to be the new messenger of the Mahatmas. Hundreds and hundreds
of books have been written by all these various latter-day messengers.

Bjorn, I would appreciate your views on any of the above.  Do you
accept  Blavatsky's major claims?  If you have reservations, can you
briefly describe them.  As I said at the beginning of my posting, Govert
and others should feel free to express their views.

Thanking everyone in advance for their input.

Daniel


Bjorn Roxendal wrote:
>
> David Green wrote:
>
> > I've
> > studied "Theosophy vs
> > Neo-Theosophy" & discussed it with
> > C Leadbeater students.  If you
> > believe Leadbeater's teachings, then
> > you don't understand Mrs Blavatsky's
> > books.
>
> Or maybe you don't agree with everything Blvatsky writes. Maybe you think that
> she does not have monopoly on truth. (And neither has Leadbeater, of course).
>
> >  In dozen of cases, C
> > Leadbeater contradicted Mrs Blavatsky.
>
> That could mean that L is right and B is wrong, or both are wrong, right? Or is
> B always right, by definition?
>
> > In many instances Leadbeater reads like
> > comic book fantasy.
>
> > Obtain Thomas book &
> > do some rational thinking.
>
> To me it seems you mean by rational thinking: "Do not believe in anything that
> contradicts Blavatsky".
>
> Bjorn