Theos-Talk Archives (May 2001 Message tt00070)

Hello Mr Caldwell,
Friday, May 11, 2001, you wrote:
> WHO PLAYED THAT TRICK ON H.P.B.? THE PUZZLE OF "THE THEOSOPHICAL
> GLOSSARY." by Boris de Zirkoff
>....informative article snipped to save bandwidth.........

Thankyou for the heads-up that not all one reads pertaining to
Theosopy, especially that with HPB's name attached, is to be taken
at face value. The naive and unwary are always in danger of falling
into the pits dug by their own enthusiasm, their wish to believe.

And I would fall into that class at the moment, because until now I
would have honestly placed my faith in anything issuing from an
established Theo printing house and even moreso in anything published
under HPB's name.

However, it's still a matter of concern that questionable material is
issued in this way. No doubt there are reasons. But as a newcomer
to Theosophy, having read Isis Unveiled, browsed the Mahatma letters,
read through your account of HPB's life (the anecodtal compendium of
references by her fellow workers); having read the abridged version of
SD (though far too quickly with far too little pondering) to get a
gist and feel, I am at a stage when fine discrimination is at a
minimum because Im still struggling with the discrimination of the
larger parts. And as far as I'm aware, there has been no credible
debunking of any of that. Therefore matters such as the glossary are
but quibbles (though important in their way, because wrong definitions
could lead to wrong consequences in someone's thinking).

Nonetheless this makes me want to pose a question to you all: Is
anyone in doubt about the provenance or veracity of this teaching?
Obviously not, otherwise you'd have hived off to seek elswhere.

But there are always some who might hang around and sow little seeds
of doubt hoping they might grow large in another's mind, so justifying
their own doubts.

I'm the last mortal to deny I myself have ever been guilty of this
often unconcious negativism. However the life of Religion and Science
- and Philosophy, the mother of them all - are rife with
well-researched examples (IU) of just this pernicious "friendliness".
And I think your account of HPB's life shows well-known cases of
vicious jealously and reactivism which led people to lie, slander and
twist the truth in an attempt to neutralise someone who, though she
posed no physical threat, her ideas and thoughts struck such damaging
iconoclistic blows at the very foundations of civilization (its
acknowledged "treasure" of establishment thought and idea). To do this
they often had to be very "picky" and seize on the minutest detail.

But it appears that as many as culumniated her were matched by
supporters who expended equal effort in research and dissemination to
quash the falsities.

All this then diverted, and now diverts, efforts to apperceive,
apprehend and adhere to HPB's fundamental message. I understand that
it is important to protect the standing of Theosophy and its founders
so that the sly dogs of materialism cannot fill the pitcher of doubt
and mistrust "drop by drop". So doubts must immediately be dispelled.
It is also possible that I, and newcomers like me (may I speak for us
all), are at a vulnerable stage; when misunderstanding, doubt and
confusion have their best chance, so we appreciate any pointers to the
possible minefields ahead.

But the bottom line is and always (in my mind) will be this: Truth has a
certain sweet taste. Trickery and ledgerdemain have a smug but
unbelievable taste. False beliefs and religions, twisted philosophies
and debased ideals and their like have an uncomfortable, unhappy,
repellent taste.

Nothing I have tasted yet, tastes so fine, so truly sweet, as HPB has
written (any non- mis- or other not-understandings notwithstanding).

Those who would feed on the food should do so, those who who would
feed on the maggots, attracted in their cycle by the richness of the
food, will do so, whatever you or I could do to avoid it.






-- 
Best regards,
Alan
mailto:alwilli@iafrica.com