Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00259)

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 
following:

"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:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/colemansources1895.htm

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
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm