Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00220)

Dr. Tillett:
Blavatsky presented her Theosophical synthesis not as mythology, but as fact.
This approach has caused even sympathetic scholars to suspect that her
esotericism was diminished by contact with rationalist paradigms. Yet in an
era characterised by an emphasis on facticity, Blavatsky was simply playing
Hermesian games by exploring the transformative potential of mythic facts and
factual myths. For in order to attract the attentions of a physical Master,
the aspiring chela needed to be prepared by achieving a comprehensive
knowledge of Theosophy via the Theosophical canon (Isis Unveiled, the Mahatma
letters, and The Secret Doctrine). Yet in a classical artifice, such
preparation itself enacted a form of initiatory transformation which would
obviate the necessity for a Master. Thus it was that fact bred mythology,
and mythology bred fact.



Lordy Gregory, what a turgid letter you have written! But I think I have
fathomed the 4th sentence of the above extracted paragraph -- and you are
wrong. Both HPB & her gurus made clear that knowledge of Theosophical
doctrines was of little consequence in determining their acceptance of a
disciple. It all had to do with conquest of their lower nature and
recognition of their higher nature -- developing an altruistic character, in
the main.

Nicholas