Theos-Talk Archives (June 2001 Message tt00039)

Dennis, The problem with the Bible is that its been changed over and 
over during the centuries to fit in with the meaning people want to find 
in it. Do you think we should do that with Blavatsky's works as well. 
Edit and change them til they say what we want them to say?

Phil



At Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:25:07 -0700, "Dennis Kier" <dennw3k@earthlink.net> 
wrote:

>
>Yes, not much time has passed, and we do understand the original words
>pretty well, but the meaning of words change with the passage of time.
>
>Some folks want the words of the Bible to remain static, no matter
>what changes have been made in the meaning, and the modern
>understanding of the meaning of the words. It almost looks to me, that
>that viewpoint is what is being advocated here when I hear it repeated
>time and again, that we must concentrate on only the original words,
>in the original published form, as though it is Dogma. HPB really
>loved DOGMA, didn't she?
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Frank Reitemeyer <ringding@blinx.de>
>To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 2:58 PM
>Subject: Re: Theos-World original versus Boris de Zirkoff editions of
>THE SECRET DOCTRINE
>
>
>> Dear Doss and Dallas,
>>
>> perhaps my English is too bad, but that's not my point.
>> I agree with that you both wrote.
>> But I was trying to offer an explanation how Boris could have seen
>it.
>> I don't say it is right or wrong.
>> Please read my text again.
>>
>> I was trying to say that there are rumours that Boris may have
>possibly
>> felt his inner duty to reveil something, considering that to his
>> understanding
>> the great majority of students of present day may have become
>unworth
>> for the deeper esoteric knowledge.
>> HPB once said about the Gautama Buddha that in his compassion he
>gave
>> too much of the teachings and later regretted it.
>> Perhaps a simliar situation for Boris who may have felt the same
>with the
>> modern theosophical teachings.
>>
>> We know it for a fact that there is a huge bulk of higher, esoteric
>> theosophical
>> teachings existsing on the outer plane, but unknown even to the
>theosophical
>> public. Who is that possible? The only satisfying explanation to me
>is that
>> we
>> are not ready for them.
>>
>> We know that HPB wrote a history of the mystery schools of the past.
>> The texts are not there. Why?
>>
>> We know that Purucker planned too to write the story of the mystery
>schools.
>> And there were many other plans too. Why do we not have it?
>> An answer limited to the restrictions of the physical plane,
>problems to
>> find
>> good coworkers, money etc. is not enough seen with theosophical
>eyes.
>> Hope, that makes a little bit clearer what I want to say.
>> Frank
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>---
>>
>> Dear Doss:
>>
>> I agree 100% on this point.
>>
>> No one is conceivably so proud and arrogant as to interpose
>> themselves between H.P.B. and the Masters who brought us
>> THEOSOPHY the SANTANA DHARMA -- the eternal doctrine -
>>
>> Those who believe this have not studied the ORIGINALS thoroughly
>> or made the necessary correlations that anyone can make. They
>> are in a hurry and apparently seek to draw in others who want a
>> "Quick way" to SPIRITUAL WISDOM.
>>
>> The only way we can calm and pacify our intermediate PSYCHIC
>> nature (fueled by Kama - desires and passions) is by
>> universalizing and impersonalizing our views - and this means to
>> change and also to purify all our motives.
>>
>> There has been a current ongoing research on CONSCIOUSNESS and a
>> number of interesting things have emerged.
>>
>> Who and what is the 'WE" that directs and channels the MIND ?
>> How is this to be done? What is the Goal we ought to seek? How
>> and why do we make choices? How does Karma attach itself to us
>> through our choices?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Dallas
>>
>> =====
>>
>> I beg to differ on this issue. It is the right of everyone of us
>> to put
>> forward what our understanding of the facts presented in the
>> original works
>> of HPB and others. When the question of "correction" or "editing"
>> for what
>> ever reason comes up, how are we sure that the editing is
>> improving the
>> understanding. It is not unlike an world reknowned Professor of
>> English
>> trying to edit Shakespeare's plays to improve them. It is in the
>> best
>> interests of everyone to leave the originals intact and not
>> tamper with them.
>>
>> ___MKR___
>>
>> At 12:28 PM 6/6/01 +0200, you wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I have been told the story that Boris edited so many terms
>> because he has
>> had good reason to do so. A higher chela can regognize moments
>> when it is
>> necessary to reveil more then to unveil. Perhaps Boris has seen
>> that the
>> theosophical philosophy is on the descending arc and becomes
>> more and more
>> corrupt. Then someone who feels his duty could come to a
>> situation where he
>> decides to keep the teachings clean before the unwise.
>> Could that be an explanation?
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]