Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00485)

Daniel wrote in reply to Richard:

> >Richard, you write about MY view, ie. "your view of Blavatsky and the
> >'adepts'."  Whatever "my view" may or may not be, I was writing about
> >*the view of Blavatsky and the adepts* as found in their writings.

Jerry commenting on the above wrote:

> The really interesting thing here, Dan, is that I am doing the very
> same thing. I wasn't aware of "my" view until you pointed it out to
> me. May I say, in my defense, that "my" view is how I interpret
> HPB and the MLs, and I have found no discrepancies. I do,
> however, see many discrepanices between their writings and
> what you, Frank, and Dallas say. And your quoting their original
> works here on this list only confirms "my" view as far as I can see.

*****Daniel replies:

Jerry in the above statement you wrote:

"The really interesting thing here, Dan, is that I am doing the very
same thing."  By "same thing" do you mean you were doing the very same
thing as I said I was doing,i.e.,:  "I was writing about *the view of
Blavatsky and the adepts* as found in their writings"?  I assume this is
what you mean but just want to clarify this point.

Jerry, regarding your comment to the effect:

"I do, however, see many discrepanices between their [HPB/Mahatmas]
writings and what you, Frank, and Dallas say."

Jerry, it would be most helpful for you to elucidate this statement of
yours by citing 2 or 3 examples.  Without *detailed, concrete* examples,
I personally have no clear cut idea what you are referring to. In other
words, could you please give us three relevant examples from what
Dallas/Frank/Dan have written that you see contradict what HPB and the
Mahatmas wrote?

Again in regards to "your view", I go back to your original statement
which prompted me to post something in reply on Theos-talk.  You wrote
in response to Dallas:

>      Theosophy, as I and those other religions are concerned,
>      embraces nothing.
>      It simply picks out those things it likes best from all the
>      world's religions and discards
>      what it doesn't like (much the same as I do myself). Why do
>      you suppose the
>      world's religions have yet to embrace Theosophy?

I must say that I find it difficult to really understand what you are
saying here to Dallas.  I assumed (and assuming is always dangerous) you
might possibly be suggesting that Madame Blavatsky SIMPLY PICKED OUT
THOSE THINGS IN THE WORLD'S RELIGIONS THAT SHE LIKED BEST AND DISCARDED
WHAT SHE DIDN'T LIKE, and labelled this compilation as Theosophy.  Maybe
this wasn't what you were suggesting.  Hopefully you will tell us.

Without naming names, a number of writers have contended that Blavatsky
"concocted" Theosophy through a process of what might be called
"compilation" or "eclecticism".  "Eclectic" is defined as:  "selecting
what appears to be the best in various doctrines, methods or styles."
In other words, Blavatsky selected various ideas from books she had read
and ideas from various "esoteric" teachers she had met in her world
travels, etc. and cobbled together a set of teachings which she then
labeled as Theosophy.  These writers assert that had she had other
"esoteric" teachers or had she used other books, she might have come up
with a "Theosophy" that would have had totally different features and
teachings other than what we find in her written works.  If this is what
you are implying in your original statement quoted above, then I was
only stating that HPB and her Masters denied that HPB used this
"cobbling" method.  Time and time again, throughout HPB's writings and
the Masters' letters, they indicate that the Adept Teachers had in their
possession an ESOTERIC DOCTRINE and HPB was ordered to given out
portions of that teaching or doctrine.  This theme is found throughout
the Mahatma Letters.

"We tell you what we know for we are made to learn it through personal
experience."

" 'You will write so and so, give *so far*, and no more'---she [HPB] was
constantly told by us, when writing her book [ISIS UNVEILED]."

". . . she obeyed our orders, and wrote [ISIS], purposely *veiling* some
of her facts. . . now. . .we think the time has arrived to give most of,
if not the *whole* truth. . . ."

"Our doctrine knows no compromises.  It either affirms or denies, for it
never teaches but that which it knows to be the truth. . . . Having
found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on it and become agnostics. . . .
We do not bow our heads in the dust before the mystery of mind---for we
*have solved it ages ago*. . . . "

" If our doctrines clash too much with your theories then we can easily
give up the subject and talk of something else. . . .we build our
[esoteric/occult/theosophical] philosophy upon experiment and
deduction---unless you choose to question and dispute this fact equally
with all others.  Learn first our laws and educate your perceptions. . .
."

These are just a few of the quotes one could compile from the Mahatma
Letters and HPB's writings indicating that KH and his esoteric
associates had an occult/esoteric doctrine and HPB was ordered in her
writings to give out portions of those teachings.  And to illustrate
those *portions* she brought forth numerous extracts, etc. from world
religions, mythologies, esoteric studies to illuminate and illustrate
the Doctrine of her teachers and to show the commonality of various
ideas in these religions, mythologies, etc. But she did not have to
cobble together the Esoteric Doctrine.  She had that from her Adept
Teachers.  Again and again she confirms this in her works.  Here's one
example.  In the Secret Doctrine, Volume I, p. 165, HPB writes:

"When the present work [SD] was commenced, the writer [HPB], feeling
sure that the speculation [by Mr. Sinnett] about Mars and Mercury was a
mistake, applied to the Teachers *by letter* for explanation and an
authoritative version.  Both came in due time, and *verbatim* extracts
are now given. . . .Again, here are extracts from another letter written
by the same authority. . . ."

It is obvious (at least to me) that HP Blavatsky relied on her Masters
for the Esoteric Doctrine.  What could be plainer? Of course she
illustrated the occult doctrine with innumerable extracts from the
world's religions for comparison purposes, etc.  But that doesn't mean
that Blavatsky made up the esoteric teaching by selecting what she
thought was true, best, etc. from those religions, etc.  Blavatsky
herself explains this method in the paragraph beginning "It would be
worse than useless. . . ." SD, I, xxxviii bottom of page and also SD, I,
xlx, paragraph beginning "This accounts for the necessity. . . .".  And
this last paragraph precedes the next one containing HPB's quoting of
"nosegay" from Montaigne.

I'm not asking anyone to blindly believe what Blavatsky and the Mahatmas
state.  Disbelieve it or reject it if you choose to do so.

Jerry, I hope this clarifies what I was trying to "get at" and hopefully
you will in turn elucidate your original point and your "position" on
this particular matter.