Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00279)

Hi Brigitte and all of you,

Just a few sentences. I think that people often ask the question WHAT IS Theosophy or theosophy ? 
The question should maybe - instead - be : 
"WHAT CAN BE SAID about theosophy and Theosophy ?? And especially, WHAT CANBE LEARNED from theosophy and Theosophy ??"
As I see it, a lot of people are NOT interested in the last question. They are much more interested in what can be said about theosophy and Theosophy.Some people seem to already have learned all there can be learned, so WISDOM as such is of no interest to them. But often they are misunderstanding, that wisdom is quite important.

Now you write and write - and that a whole lot. I took the following.
Brigitte wrote:

Donnelly's Atlantis
> was largely plagiarised from. Madame Blavatsky not only borrowed from 
> this writer the general idea of the derivation of Eastern 
> civilisation, mythology, etc., from Atlantis; but she coolly 
> appropriated from him a number of the alleged detailed evidences of 
> this derivation, without crediting him therewith. Vol. ii., pp. 790-
> 793, contains a number of facts, numbered seriatim, said to prove 
> this Atlantean derivation.

An answering view: 
I think Donnelly didn't invent this Atlantis idea all by himself. I think some of the INTITATES helped him. I can't prove it - so easily living in Denmark - not having access to books etc. But my rather strange level of ESP (Extra Sensory Perception) tells me, that there is something to it, more than they physical eye catches at first glimpse.
So Brigitte I ask you: Do you have anything on, where Donnelly got his information from ?? It could be interesting if, there could be found something on that. Who was Donnelly, and - who taught him etc. ??

By they way: Does anyone know why children say - something like 'gu gu - gaga - gy gy' ??

from
Sufilight with LOVE - (smile your are on !)




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bri_mue" <bri_mue@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 6:07 AM
Subject: Theos-World Drugs TS masonic degrees ,and the Chohan alias Blavatsky.


> Botanical substances in the masonic degrees of the early TS.
> Adelasie: "something she wrote on the subject that supports your 
> theory"
> 
> First of all it is well established knowledge among most modern 
> researchers of Theosophy, and is not "my" theory.
> Second there are many quotes that you clearly overlooked. But what I 
> will do in this case is not just send a new posting on the subject 
> that as is obvious in a few weeks will be lost and gone. But i will 
> write in this case an article about it that I will place on my web 
> site since this matter seems to be coming up over and over, and send 
> the link to this list, and every time the question comes up again 
> therefore simple the link can be re-posted and no need to go through 
> two dozen or more of old postings.
> 
> It will take some time however, as I am working on about two dozen 
> articles for my www. ( I placed already 16 new articles just the last 
> 31/2 weeks. 
> What I place on this list on the other hand are never articles (that 
> is where my web site is for) but simple quotes and my comment to 
> them, and the responses to what other people say, solely for the 
> sake of discussion on this mailing list.
> 
> If Daniel Caldwell who claims HPB is in reality "Chohan" of the White 
> Brotherhood and the real teacher of K.H., Morya, and Dwal Kul, it is 
> no wonder Theosophists suddenly don't need for Blavatsky to ever have 
> gone anywhere near Tibet anymore, because now, using Daniel 
> Caldwell's "4 step process of discovery" it is suddenly Olcott and 
> Blavatsky's New York Apartment (no wonder it was raining inside 
> there) the actual seat of the "Nirmanakaya" of the "Occult 
> Brotherhood" , that indeed is called "The Lamasery." 
> 
> Not much different from Lopsang Rampa or the founder of Eckankar, 
> that of course simple explained also could have been "Chahan's" 
> and "Nirmankaya's" in their own right) 
> 
> For example The Secret Doctrine, already Coleman stated and since 
> then has been re-confirmed, The Secret Doctrine published in 1888, is 
> of a piece with Isis. It is permeated with plagiarisms, and is in all 
> its parts a rehash of other books. Two books very largely form the 
> basis of this work, - Wilson's translation of the Vishnu Purana,
> and Prof. Winchell's World Life. 
> 
> The Secret Doctrine is saturated with Hinduism and Sanskrit 
> terminology, and the bulk of this was copied from Wilson's Vishnu 
> Purana. A large part of the work is devoted to the discussion of 
> various points in modern science, and the work most largely used by 
> Madame Blavatsky in this department of her book was Winchell's
> World Life.
> 
> A specimen of the wholesale plagiarisms in this book appears in vol. 
> ii., pp. 599-603. Nearly the whole of four pages was copied from 
> Oliver's Pythagorean Triangle, while only a few lines were
> credited to that work. Considerable other matter in Secret Doctrine 
> was copied, uncredited, from Oliver's work. Donnelly's Atlantis
> was largely plagiarised from. Madame Blavatsky not only borrowed from 
> this writer the general idea of the derivation of Eastern 
> civilisation, mythology, etc., from Atlantis; but she coolly 
> appropriated from him a number of the alleged detailed evidences of 
> this derivation, without crediting him therewith. Vol. ii., pp. 790-
> 793, contains a number of facts, numbered seriatim, said to prove 
> this Atlantean derivation.
> 
> These facts were almost wholly copied from Donnelly's book, ch.
> iv., where they are also numbered seriatim; but there is no 
> intimation in Secret Doctrine that its author was indebted to 
> Donnelly's book for this mass of matter. In addition to those 
> credited, there are 130 passages from Wilson's Vishnu Purana copied 
> uncredited; and there are some 70 passages from Winchell's World Life 
> not credited. From Dowson's Hindu Classical Dictionary, 123 passages 
> wereplagiarised. 
> From Decharme's Mythologie de la Grece Antique, about 60 passages 
> were plagiarised; and from Myer's Qabbala, 34. These are some of
> the other books plagiarised from: Kenealy's Book of God, Faber's
> Cabiri, 
> Wake's Great Pyramid, Gould's Mythical Monsters, Joly's
> Man before Metals, Stallo's, Modern Physics, Massey's Natural Genesis,
> Mackey's Mythological Astronomy, Schmidt's Descent and Darwinism, 
> Quatrefages's Human Species, Laing's Modern Science and
> Modern Thought, Mather's Cabbala Unveiled, Maspero's Musee de
> Boulaq, Ragon's Maconnerie Occulte, Lefevre's Philosophy, and
> Buchner's Force and Matter.
> 
> The Secret Doctrine is ostensibly based upon certain stanzas, claimed 
> to have been translated by Madame Blavatsky from the Book of Dzyan, - 
> the oldest book in the world, written in a language unknown to 
> philology. The Book of Dzyan was the work of Madame Blavatsky, - a 
> compilation, in her own language, from a variety of sources, 
> embracing the general principles of the doctrines and dogmas taught 
> in the Secret Doctrine. I find in this "oldest book in the world" 
> statements copied from nineteenth-century books, and in the usual 
> blundering manner of Madame Blavatsky. Letters and other writings of 
> the adepts are found in the Secret Doctrine.
> Mic Foster and John Beers are intelligent people and the reason 
> they almost ended up believing Lopsang Rampa wholesale is the same as 
> the lack of information about the origins and sources of Blavatsky's 
> writings that in many cases even well read people are not in a 
> position to recognise and on top of that are foooled by some who try 
> to do so like people similar to the Daniel Caldwell type.
> 
> Paul: The search for metamessages is a dangerous one to the 
> fundamentalist mind, because it allows one to work entirely within 
> the canon, and yet come up with new discoveries that overturn 
> received interpretations. It lends itself to abuses, as when Barbara 
> Thiering imagines that the Dead Sea Scrolls are really about Jesus. 
> But in the case of conscious esotericists, we can only assume that 
> metamessages are present and that the obvious level of interpretation 
> is often literally false."
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>