Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00257)

Brigitte, thanks for the info on Tibet even if it means the unlikelihood of any initiation there.

<<<From an e-mail of Paul Johnson: "In fact, I have no particular reason to prefer one explanation to another concerning how Blavatsky's writings became so much better informed about Tibetan matters in the last ten years of her life but it makes more sense
to look at events during those years for an explanation; if she had acquired such information years before why are her early writings so ill-informed about Tibetan Buddhism?>>>

Agreed. Some of her mahayana material is accurate, but much is nonsense and even more Hinduism than Buddhism. Obviously her sources were erroneous. It was not until A. David-Neel that more accurate info concerning Tibet was made public. David-Neel, who was a Theosophist for a time, discovered many of Blavatsky's errors by talking to Tibetans.


<<<Also in 1875 and 1876 there was not an elaborate and well-publicized body of claims about Mahatmas to be justified and defended, as there was after 1881.>>>

She needed the publicity to get the TS started. Her whole Mahatma business is esoterically true, but not literally true, and while she clearly understood the difference, I doubt that others would have, so she remained silent.


<<<My version of Theosophical reality is open-ended and ever-changing.>>>

Mine too.



<<I consider the passages from HPB and K.H. about the visit to Sikkim to be disinformation, and various claims about M. and K.H. living in Tibet appear to belong to the same category, 
Was the home of K.H. in Ladakh, Kashmir, or Shigatse? HPB tells Hollis-Billings Ladakh, but tells Sinnett and Hartmann Shigatse. Damodar tells Judge it is in Kashmir. Was the headquarters of
the Masters in Ladakh or Tibet? Damodar tells Judge one thing in 1884, but Mohini writes another in *The Theosophist* the very same year. Such discrepancies suggest that whatever the truth of the matter, Theosophical claims about Tibet are riddled with disinformation.">>>

Agreed. This is, I think, Paul's conclusion as well. 
The biggest fault that I can find with Blavatsky's Buddhism is her continuous reification, which no Buddhist would ever do. This has led to a great deal of misunderstanding in her students over the last one hundred years, and is causing a great deal of bad feeling today with Buddhists. But, its probably too late now to do much about it. To Blavatsky, Theosophy was a living spirit that seeked to find and discuss truth. To her, Theosophists were anyone who had this spirit in their heart. Today it is a religion with sacred teachings, rituals, the elect, and so on. On the other hand, this is pretty much the way that human nature works. Kinda depressing.

Jerry S.
--