So, Brigitte Mühlegger, where do you stand? Are there "tremendous spiritual ...
Feb 09, 2002 11:33 AM
SUBJECT: So, Brigitte Mühlegger, where do you stand? Are
there "tremendous spiritual treasures" in Blavatsky's writings?
K. Paul Johnson (is quoted by you) as writing:
"the writings of HPB, contains a vast amount of material on a huge
range of subjects with a wide range of reliability/unreliability,
coming from a lifetime's exposure to a formidable variety of sources
(living and literary.) Within that range of material there are
tremendous spiritual treasures along with a lot of stuff that is very
dated and reflects the scientific and historical inaccuracies of
extant sources available to her. The fundamentalist says it's all
literally true and we shouldn't look to make any distinctions between
parts that are historically accurate or not, practically applicable
or not, wise or foolish, sincere or blinds, etc. The radical skeptic
says it's all foolishness, inaccuracy, unreliability, practically
worthless. In between those camps stand those of us who see the wide
range of value and relevancy in the large body of material."
Thanks for quoting Paul Johnson. He brings up some good points.
So, Brigitte, where do you stand? What camp are you in?
(1) You're not a theosophical fundamentalist, I assume! :)
(2) Are you a "radical skeptic" who "says it's all foolishness,
inaccuracy, unreliability, practically worthless"?
(3)Or do you belong to the 3rd category?
"In between those camps stand those of us who see the wide range of
value and relevancy in the large body of material."
Paul Johnson believes that Blavatsky's writings contain "tremendous
spiritual treasures" along with "a lot of stuff that is very dated
and reflects the scientific and historical inaccuracies of extant
sources available to her."
Brigitte, do you AGREE with Paul that there are "tremendous spiritual
treasures" in Blavatsky's writings?
Furthermore, if you agree with Paul about the "tremendous spiritual
treasures", do you believe that the only reason there are
such "tremendous spiritual treasures" in her writings is because she
appropriated SO MUCH material from books by other writers that she
was bound (just through chance) to include from time to time good and
valid ideas, etc?
I ask this latter question because William Emmette Coleman wrote the
"The doctrines, teachings, dogmas, etc., of theosophy, as published
by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, and affirmed to be derived from the
quasi-infallible Mahatmas of Thibet, were borrowed from the
philosophies and religions of the past and present, with some
admixture of modern science. There is nothing original in
this 'Wisdom of the Gods,' or 'Wisdom Religion,' save the work of
compilation into a composite whole of the heterogeneous mass of
materials gathered by Madame Blavatsky from so many sources, and the
garblings, perversions, and fabrications indulged in by her in the
preparation of the system of thought called theosophy. . . .
There is not a single dogma or tenet in theosophy, nor any detail of
moment in the multiplex and complex concatenation of alleged
revelations of occult truth in the teachings of Madame Blavatsky and
the pretended adepts, the source of which cannot be pointed out in
the world's literature. From first to last, their writings are
dominated by a duplex plagiarism, - plagiarism in idea, and
plagiarism in language." Quoted from:
So do you agree with Johnson or Coleman (who appears to be a "radical
skeptic") or both on this latter point about whether Blavatsky's
writings contain "tremendous spiritual treasures"?
Looking forward to your insights on this issue that Paul Johnson
originally brought up.
Daniel H. Caldwell
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application