Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00161)

Dear Brian,

On 8/14/02, you wrote:
<The Stanza's of Dzyan never have been shown to exist in any Buddhist or
Tibetan canon or manuscript, ever found.>
<Also there is after all these year no evidence it came from the volumes of
"Kiu-ti" that Blavatsky mentioned in "Isis Unveiled' >

So what is your point? Blavatsky never claimed the Stanzas came from any
known book, or that such would ever be "found."
Everything she said about her teachers indicated they had always kept
details about themselves and their works from the public.

You also wrote:
<The question is also why 'The Secret Doctrine", that rather appears to be
docterred together by normal humans, would be more "right" about the
"spiritual world" then lets say the book of Oahspe, the Urantia book, and
others ?>

Ultimately, this question has to be decided by each person for him/herself.
It would be helpful, I think, to read more of what Blavatsky wrote about
this, starting with an article called "The Babel of Modern Thought," which
can be found in the BlavatskyNet archives (see
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/BabelOfModernThought.htm) as well as
in print several places. She writes:

It [the book, "The Secret Doctrine"] is neither a philosophical system nor
the Doctrine, called secret or esoteric, but only a record of a few of its
facts and a witness to it. It has never claimed to be the full exposition of
the system (it advocates) in its totality; (a) because as the writer does
not boast of being a great Initiate, she could, therefore, never have
undertaken such a gigantic task; and (b) because had she been one, she would
have divulged still less. It has never been contemplated to make of the
sacred truths an integral system for the ribaldry and sneers of a profane
and iconoclastic public. The work does not pretend to set up a series of
explanations, complete in all their details, of the mysteries of Being; nor
does it seek to win for itself the name of a distinct system of
thought--like the works of Messrs. Herbert Spencer, Schopenhauer or Comte.
On the contrary, the Secret Doctrine merely asserts that a system, known as
the WISDOM RELIGION, the work of generations of adepts and seers, the sacred
heirloom of pre-historic times--actually exists, though hitherto preserved
in the greatest secrecy by the present Initiates; and it points to various
corroborations of its existence to this very day..."

So, she is merely giving *evidence* for the existence of an ancient
knowledge. Except for the Stanzas and Commentaries on them, there are
relatively few places where she makes outright statements about the views of
esoteric philosophy. Mic Forster just gave an excellent explanation
(8/14/02) and better than I could do about the issues raised surrounding the
SD. It's worth re-reading.

Best Regards,
Wes