Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00198)

Dec 16th 1998

Dear Darren:

Some answers or comments are inserted below in the text of this
posting.

Dal

> From: Darren
> Sent:	Tuesday, December 15, 1998 4:34 PM
> Subject: All Offers Considered

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?"

Dallas:  HPB has handled that herself in several places in the SD
and in articles what she wrote, particularly "MY BOOKS" LUCIFER
May 1891 . Edn of HPB Articles  Vol. 1, p. 475.]

The difference is that ISIS serves to put forward as evidence
information culled from classical and contemporary literature on
the hidden side of Nature and her Laws.

The S D gives the philosophical and doctrinal base for the whole
structure of THEOSOPHY - which had been evoked by the inquiries
of many students and partially answered during the period between
1877 and 1888 in many of her magazine articles.


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.

Dallas:	I would agree with most of that


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.

Dallas:  I would ask if there is any evidence of this or is it an
opinion.

In ISIS UNVEILED Vol. 2, p. 100 HPB states that the "Secret
Association is still alive and as active as ever," "the BRAHMATMA
is still accessible to those "who know,"

Later on p. 307 Vol. 2, she adds "...the present writer, who
states a few facts concerning them, by the SPECIAL PERMISSION OF
ONE WHO HAS A RIGHT TO GIVE IT."

One might assume that HPB would not put this information in
unless it were "permitted."

Further,  In the magazine PATH  vol. 8, p. 1 (April 1893) will be
found printed two certificates as to the authorship of the SECRET
DOCTRINE given by the two Mahatmas who were concerned with that
work (as they were with the writing of ISIS UNVEILED 11 years
earlier)
There they state that they co-authored the SD with HPB.

I do not think that more need be said.

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. "

Dallas:  And that is an "opinion." But I doubt if it is accurate.

One of the most important aspects of Theosophical doctrine is its
coherence and its consistency.  This has to be proved to ones'
self by study and careful comparison of relevant statements.
 see ISIS, Vol. 2, p. 420 top ]

What possible damage could have been done to the "Association" by
Their (the Mahatmas') making themselves responsible for
publishing the information that they did ?

Best wishes

Dallas


******************************************
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.)
***************************************************

theos-talk@theosophy.com

of