Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00187)

This is a quotation by Alexis Dolgoruki from his website www.parascience.org :

"There have been those in the intervening years who have tried desperately
to get the movement on a track "back to Blavatsky" but it has never really
seemed to work. One of the reasons is that most of these people were
totally dedicated to the Blavatsky represented by the "Secret Doctrine"
rather than the Blavatsky represented by Isis Unveiled". The question one
should now ask is this: "What's the difference?"

The answer to that question is that anything which was published after
Yelena Blavatskaya's death cannot be assumed to have issued from her mind
and pen. Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater were the theosophical
equivalents of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, they were forgers and thieves
of history! As far as Blavatskaya's writings are concerned, "Isis Unveiled"
(in the 1877 facsimile edition published by the Theosophy Company ULT) is
her work, and it is just possible that most of the Secret Doctrine, but
ONLY in the 1888 edition which is published in a facsimile of the original
by the Theosophy Company ULT ). The so-called Third Volume of the Secret
Doctrine must be assumed to be entirely invalid and a totally revisionist
thing. BUT, the motivations behind her writing of the Secret Doctrine are
highly questionable. It is my own impression that they were written as a
"false trail" or "blind" to undo the damage she had done by pre-emptoraly
and precipitously revealing the existence of the "Association of Adepts"
entirely contrary to the expressed desires of a majority of that group. Her
actions, well-meaning as they may have been did an enormous amount of
damage to the Association and Blavatskaya was, by this point in time,
absolutely willing to do anything necessary to undo the damage. Even if it
meant writing reams of egregious nonsense. "


******************************************
The Politics Of Prescribed Prohibition (Nov. 10 - An excellent op-ed
in The Canberra Times, in Australia, notes the scientific and
scholarly evidence we have about drugs and drug use are routinely
overlooked in favour of policies based on ideas that are the
intellectual and academic equivalent of a belief in witchcraft. The
overwhelming bulk of scientific and scholarly evidence suggests that
prohibition has greatly exacerbated the problems associated with
drugs, drug use and drug users. Even so there are still those who try
to argue that reliance on prohibition has prevented an explosion in
availability and usage, and that any change in policy would send out
the wrong message. There is no evidence to support this. Indeed, what
evidence there is suggests the exact opposite.)
***************************************************