Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00109)

Caldwell/Graye wrote:
>
> 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!

Sorry to be so late answering you. (Available time is limited with job, seven
children and other spiritual commitments.)

> 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.

Yes, I do.

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

Yes.

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

Tulku of what?

> 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.

Yes.

> 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.

I believe some of them still used physical bodies, but that some had transcended
that level entirely.

> H P Blavatsky wrote more than 10,000 pages on Theosophy, etc.

Yes, she wrote a lot.

> >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?

In theory, yes, but as others here have pointed out, there seems to be
considerable room for differences of interpretation.

> 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!

Studying  B or any other esoteric/spiritual writings is not an end in itself. I
certainly agree it can be immensly beneficial, but to make the reading of all
B's 10,000 pages mandatory just doesn't make any sense to me.

> If you believe what the Masters say in their letters, then HPB was a
> very unique individual.

She certainly was. But she was not the only unique individual in human history.

Please do not misunderstand me. I think HPB did an enormous and ground breaking
job for her masters.

> Do you accept what the Master KH says about HPB?

What I don't accept is the idea of finality or infallability. I believe in the
foundational teachings brought forth through HPB, however.

> 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.

I get the impression that you think I am somehow "against" HPB. I never was.
But there is always issues of mistaken perception, wishful thinking, and,
personal perspective and conditioning. Nobody can totally break free from these
while yet embodied.

> 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?]

Yes, and I find the same recurring themes in the writings of Leadbeater, Besant,
Yogananda and many others. Our difference may be that I don't see B as the one
who is above all the rest, while you may do so.

> 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.

There are certainly errors, but more importantly, she had a mindset and her work
was colored by it (like everybody else's).

> 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.

I hope I have answered, albeit somewhat briefly.

Bjorn