Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00468)

Friday, December 21, 2001

Re: H P B writer -- and THEOSOPHY. Who shall we judge ?

Dear Ian:

I suggest you index for me (us) that which you call so broadly
"patently her own invention and misinterpretation." It would be
most useful to see what you have actually found out concerning H.
P. Blavatsky, and her writings.

If you are looking at philosophical concepts and the History of
Ideas, these can be mentioned, and dealt with seriatum.

If you refer to pages in The SECRET DOCTRINE, ISIS UNVEILED or
elsewhere in the original theosophical literature, a page or
other Source of primary reference will be useful for checking
those broad and challenging statements of yours. I assume that
your records are equally well indexed ?

Failing these, it will not be easy to grant any part of your
broad thesis. And incidentally, you are not the first in the
past 110 years or so, to offer some of these opinions. Some
were offered while Mme. Blavatsky was alive and were suitably
answered by her. Are you aware of that?

Further, I have not seen any reasoned, basic and detailed
criticism of The SECRET DOCTRINE or of the THEOSOPHICAL
PHILOSOPHY emerge so far. I am sure in your pioneer scholarly
research you have already done this. So do help those of us who
are students, to understand the basis you seem to claim is a
better view.

I say this with a certain base of experience. I may be wrong in
my conclusions, and if yours are better, then they will be worthy
of consideration and of adoption.

The word "sycophant" is hardly accurate until it is proven that I
am a "parasitic flatterer of princes and great men" [ from
Webster's Dictionary ] . I do my own thinking and derive my
position and conclusions from that basis.

If you have studied THEOSOPHY, then it will be very interesting
to see what you may have to say, if it is reasoned and factual.

I offer what I have to say on the basis of the discoveries and
the knowledge I have derived from a broad based area of study.
You have used some rather harsh evaluations of the work of Mme.
Blavatsky, "falsified evidence," "regurgitation of others
work," also, "lies," "fraudulent dealings in spiritualism," and
"penning the Mahatma letters herself" -- what actual evidence
have you to proffer to support your broad contentions? I am
curious to discover what you have seen that I, and others, have
not. Is it based on whose reports, published where, and when,
and what particular circumstances were covered by any such
reports. Was there any earlier response? etc., etc.

A History of the development of Knowledge ?

What would be wrong in claiming that all our knowledge fades back
into the distance of time -- to the Romans, the Greeks, the
Egyptians, the Jews, the Scandinavians and the Druids, then, to
the Assyrians, the Chaldees, the Magi and Zoroastrians, the Hindu
Rishis and the Tibetan Lha, the Chinese Sages, the Mongolian
Shamans, and perhaps the myths of ancient races which have such
similarities, such as Joseph Campbell discusses -- and, perhaps
there might be some truth of fact,-- in relating them back to
the "Atlanteans," and the "Lemurians"-- and although to you,
these may appear too nebulous to consider, they may not prove to
be entirely inaccurate. I will try and give a short survey of
some of the achievements of ancient science, most of which are
under survey by our modern scholars.

It is unfortunate that most of the records left by the "Indians"
of North, Central and South America was destroyed by invading
fanatical Catholic priests, or those could be added to the list.
But some of the marvelous constructions in the Americas and the
patterns left of their civilized capacities ought to be added to
the record.

The Cyclopean origins of many towns and ports around the
Mediterranean, the hundreds and thousands of rock-cut and
constructed temples in India, [such as Elephanta, Kanheri,
Karla, Badjia, Bagh, Pandulena, Ellora, Ajanta, Somnathpur,
Shravan Belgola, Kanchipuram, Wai, Kajuraho, and scores of other
places] and in China, Tibet and Central Asia, the city and
religious constructions in Cambodia [Nagkon Wat, Ankor Thom,
Bayon, etc.,] and in Indonesia [Borobudur, Prambanand, etc...]
all deserve mention as evidence of ancient knowledge still little
known to most scholars (unless they subscribe to the National
Geographic Magazine or have access to the libraries of the Royal
Asiatic Society, the British Museum, the Library of Congress, the
Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, etc., etc. )

Derision and calumnies (if present) are not, to my mind, a sign
of true scholarship. But inquiry and comparison, in the spirit
of increasing our mutual area of learning, are. And that does
not include the time spent on deriding those scholars or wise
individuals, who have preceded us. Those we honor, and hope
perhaps to emulate, in due course, with our concurrence and
understanding.

NATURE, our Earth, and what little we have been able to glean of
the ordering of the Universe, demonstrate in all ways that they
are patently guided by invisible, effective and secret laws.
These Laws are constantly being uncovered as Science advances --
they are revealed, as well established and firmly set in place
by scientific discovery. Why should not these be considered to
be welded into a harmonious whole? Why should there not be
evidence of a Universal Intelligence, in which we play a minor
part ?

There is no reason to believe that knowledge and wisdom are not
ancient. There are things disinterred from past civilizations,
covered by the deposits of time, that to the geologist reveal
the antiquity of millions of years. Additionally, they show
signs of advanced material, philosophical and mathematical
knowledge -- such as astronomy, geometry, mathematics,
engineering, hydraulics, and other branches of practical
knowledge.

And some of these gaps in time remain inexplicable in terms of
our modern day hypotheses and theories on the presumed ascent of
intelligence. The existence of the knowledge that enabled these
ancient wonders, remains to be explained. This is what H P B
wrote about, and it is the subject for Theosophical studies in
addition to all the information that can be had on "spiritualism,
"mediumship," the "astral plane," etc... How many in the realm of
Science are investigating this area to which H P B gave such
detailed explanations ( see ISIS UNVEILED ).

Why consider that even recently, we proved we were incapable of
building a new Pyramid with all our equipment and knowledge --
this has been tried, documented, and abandoned. The secret of
malleable glass known to the Egyptians -- samples have been
found -- remains to be discovered. The making of cements
stronger than the stones they bind, is another secret that
remains to be discovered. The wonderful hydraulic works of
antiquity found in India, China, Burma, Thailand, and now traces
of these are seen in the Amazon and in Bolivia were not conceived
by savages ! How about the carving found in Peru and Bolivia
where multi-faceted stones were carved and cemented into place.
No modern duplication so far achieved. What about the famous
"Candelabra of the Andes?" And the designs left on the Nazca
Plateau which can only be seen from high up in the air.

Science in Europe, emerging from the dark ages, has brought all
these, and more, to light. Our Science is hardly some 3 to 400
years old and already we are telling the ancients that we know
more than they do. Such arrogance !

Read ISIS UNVEILED if you want a catalog of past glories in many
disciplines. Read The SECRET DOCTRINE if you wish to discover a
description of those who on the scene participated in the
formation of Worlds, and the ascent of man as a spiritual being
forced to inhabit a form of gross material by the duties he
failed to accomplish. What do you know or can say of the inner
psychology of any human being? What are the stratifications of
the psyche, the emotions, the mind, and the discriminative
faculty? Is Man's intelligence to be measured? Can you and I
not determine we will adopt a specific goal of living and not
make it our life's work? and is that entirely destroyed at
death? to what purpose ? How do we describe the Will? what is
nobility? Can we dissect aspiration ?

I would say that you misquote my reasons for "speaking ill of the
dead" -- it has to do with the inaccuracies in history that are
revealed, and concealment of the dates referred to. Broad
statements were made without careful historical and meticulous
research placed in full detail before the reading and studying
audience. Your use of criticism and broad un-detailed
accusations are certainly not novel. But they remain to be
explained satisfactorily, and you have offered to do this.

I say that if any one has something worthwhile to say it is to be
done with the intent of sharing knowledge, and arousing interest
and discovery -- any other motive is questionable.

Your suggestion that there is at least in me, a "blind
acceptance" of what H.P.Blavatsky wrote and taught is hardly
accurate, since you do not know me. Nor is that patent from the
things I have been publicly writing.

Best wishes to you,

Dallas TenBroeck

========================================

-----Original Message-----

From: I H----g
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001
To: Subject: to Dallas

<<<What does H P B's "personality" have to do with the Message,
the philosophy, the ethics of THEOSOPHY ?>>>

Firstly, most of the criticisms of Theosophy stem from the fact
that although the basis of Theoesophical thinking is good and
useful to everyone, it's the continued claims that HPB has done
anything more than regurgitate the knowledge that others had
already developed - and that the knowledge has been passed down
from Atlanteans and 'Masters' when much of it is patently her own
invention and misinterpretation.

Secondly - and there *is* a lot of very good contempary evidence
to support this which I'm happy to post here if you wish - that
HPB was known to have falsified evidence and lied about any
number of things, with many fellow Theosophists as witness to
this. Her past in India, her fraudulent dealings in Spiritualism,
her being seen to pen some of the Mahatma letters herself...they
really don't paint a rosey picture of a woman who was out to help
the world, rather a person who was keen to be liked and admired
for something she wasn't. If she *was* a fraud at any point in
her life and continued to falsify evidence, how can anyone
possibly take what she says as being the truth? Her conduct and
character *do* matter a very great deal if the trust of hundreds
of Theosophists is to be placed upon her words.

You've said in a number of mails that it's unfair to criticise
someone when they're dead - does this mean that HPB is forever
beyond reproach and that we should regard her word as gospel? I
think not. That's possibly the weakest argument for belief I've
ever heard. Alive or dead everyone must continue to try to find
the truth or lies in what she has written, not be told by a
sycophant that we should just forget everything in her life that
pointed out the fact that she had a less than savoury past.

You also ask those who disagree with you to come up with relevant
evidence from people who knew HPB; as I say, I would be very
happy to post the relevant text here if you want to see it.

Blind acceptance of HPB should not be an option for anyone,
especially on the basis that she's not around to defend herself.

Kind regards,
Ian


CUT