Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00134)

I'm posting the following on both Theos-1 and Theos Talk, 
as per Daniels precedent re BAG, recently. Does anybody 
have a problem with that in my case? BAG?

Dec 18/02, BAG wrote, in part (ie, in small, small part): <<In 
a culture where one identifies one's guru before even 
introducing oneself, it is extremely strange for HPB to 
have kept her guru(s) a secret all those years. Her 
Theosophical moral teachings were not tamasic / 
Left-hand Tantric, so why all the secrecy ? Were her 
Rajas Masons? Were they Sufi occultists? I doubt it. 
She didn't produce them and they never came forward to 
acknowledge her as their disciple, because 'they' did not 
exist. Her Mahatmas were BASED ON real people, but 
they were composites. Like the Stanzas of Dzyan, her 
Mahatmas were complied from bits and pieces of real 
literatures / real people, but could not be produced 
in-the-flesh or in-the-text, because they were not real 
people or real literatures. The Mahatmas and the Stanzas 
were HPB and friends' creation. In the case of the 
Kashmiri Rajas, these real and unique persons clearly 
provided a model on which the grand Punjabi or 
Kashmiri ARYAN Mahatmas were fashioned. They 
Kashmiri Rajas were also part of that unique religious 
Kashmiri Mix, and could very well have supplied HPB and 
friends with a vast amount of information. The fact that 
the Kashmiri Singh Dynasty Rajas were involved in an 
enormous library project is extremely important when we 
consider what information came to HPB and friends 
through their contacts with them. >>

BAG, I think most of us here know that the RC and 
Bhakti yoga practitioners and various people and groups 
did not, during HPB's time, and still don't, (apparently 
enough?), care for HPB or Theosophy. But then, 
(apparently enough?), the esoteric essence of Theosophy 
is, or at least tends to be, I suspect, beyond most people, 
anyway, (regardless of which way it might get twisted, 
along the way, by whoever), isn't it? No? On the other 
hand, I wonder if there may be those who might prefer to 
believe that there is no such thing as "esoteric essence" in 
Theosophy, and/or that one ought to just drop one's 
interest in Theosophy and join the RC, or some Bhakti 
yoga group, or something else, instead?

I tend to see much promise in the ESSENCE of Theosophy 
as brought to us by HPB, Judge and various other writers. 
No need to ask me what I mean by "essence of 
Theosophy" since I've been speculating about that topic 
recently on these lists, if somewhat indirectly, maybe, by 
way of references to "blinds" and "esoteric/exoteric" and 
the like. And I tend to think that HPB had a few words to 
say, and write, about the "essence of Theosophy," (at least 
for those who could read between the lines) so I don't see 
how anybody (execept for ... ?) could complain about a 
shortage of effort on her part.

And, yes, I think we all know that the RC, and various 
more-conventional/mainstream things appear to be far far 
"more understandable" and popular than Theosophy; 
(clearly enough?), and so, keeping that in mind, one might 
wonder why any person with an apparent enough 
preference for, say, Bhakti yoga, RC, and whatever else 
more-mainstream might want to devote as much time and 
effort on these lists as, for example, "Brian/Brigitte" and ... 
whoever ... I'm speculating that karma might have 
something do with that and every other kind of 
phenomena ... So ... Yikes! 

Speculatively,
Mauri