Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00263)

--- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
> What's to be careful of?

Well, it is absurd, but in the past whenever anyone has referred to 
the fact that Blavatsky wrote her book as a synthesis and identified 
it as such, a number of people got VERRRRRY upset. Why anyone would 
find that upsetting is an absolute total mystery to me. After all,it 
was BLAVATSKY and not any of us who chose to present the book as a 
synthesis. Anyway, no knees seem to be jerking this time, which is 
excellent.

> what is a "theosophical Fundamentalist"

There is nothing derisive about it. A "fundamentalist" is someone 
who believes in the inerrancy of the scriptures (which Blavatsky 
explicitly asked us not to do in her case) and who is afraid to 
investigate the subject too deeply (even rgiyfg Vkavarsjy explicitly 
told us the most interesting parts were deliberately hidden and 
invited us to uncover them.)

Why do
> some people use such a designation in a pejorative sense?

You will have to ask them. I do not use that desination that way.

> Did HPB present the Three Fundamental 
> Principles as being theoretical

I dunno. Did she?

> be considered) -- or as a factual basis (which one could accept or 
not) upon 
> which all the concepts in the SD rested upon?

Volume 1 of the SD rests on the observation that objects were 
seemingly "materialized" in spirit seances and that Blavatsky claimed 
to have the secret of such materializations and claimed the ability 
to demo this phenomenon. More interestingly, she claimed these demos 
were demos of well understood principles, which by extrapolation 
could explain the materialization of the solar system out of 
apparently empty space. Bart L. said nobody knows how the mahatma 
letters were precipitated (those which were.) Not true. Study 
volume 1 of the SD and you will find about half of it there. The 
mahatmas considered the whole thing "secret" so it is hidden in plain 
sight as it were. The book is deliberately difficult to unravel. 
Much of the theory and pracice is not there at all but has to be 
found elsewhere. What we do not know at all is the correspondences 
and mantras which were used in her school. (Unless you are a chela, 
that is, which I am not.)

Can we assume, then, that if 
> one could not find another set of fundamental principles that 
contradicted 
> the "Synthesis" (expressed consistently and without contradiction 
from every 
> imaginable angle in the SD)

I suspect this is the fault of her editorial committee, but the SD is 
not without contradictions.

> wouldn't it also be a reasonable basis to assume that the 
> metaphysics of rounds and races, as explained in the SD, was also 
consistent 
> with the true nature of reality?

I can't agree with that. I have high regard (more than high) for the 
first volume and the yoga system which is partially revealed in it if 
you study it deeply enough. The second volume and the 
anthropological theory just have more problems with it than I can be 
comfortable with.

If not, what's the alternative origin and 
> history of the human species, along with the involution and 
evolution of the 
> consciousness and matter

The theory has to agree with scientific fact to be credible. The 
second volume has some problems in that area.

> Since, apparently, HPB left very little room for interpretation

Not true at all. Some of the nhe nuumbers, such as how many years 
since Lemuria sank are completely wrong in the SD, and HPB herslef 
says they were blinds, plain and simple.

> why shouldn't all theosophists who accept the SD (supplemented by 
> her other writings) as being a synthetically true and consistent

Fine where the cosmpogenetic theory is concerned. Ditto with the 
seven principles of man and nature. Assuming you understand them, 
that is. Most theosophists think these are objective, whereas they 
are statements about consciousness itself and not the onjects of 
consciousness.