Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00195)

re BAG's motives?

BAG wrote: <<She wanted divine revelation without the 
Deity Who was its source. The origin of the Stanzas is left 
purposely vague and they are clearly meant to be 
unobtainable for direct study. Why? Why has no 
Theosophist ever been able to produce them ? Outside of 
the Sanskrit Vedic-Vaishnava Literatures or their later 
Buddhist and Shaivite versions, the 'Stanzas' of Dzyan had 
apparently had no existence. >> 

I'm speculating that some people may be regarded by some 
as not particularly wise, wonderful, trustable, etc, with 
regard to some things, until ... whatever/whenever ...

<<To maintain the sui generis illusion of her teachings, 
HPB had to obscure her first-hand and second-hand 
reliance on the Theistic Bhakti Shastras of 
Vaishnavism.>>

I don't know what "Theistic Bhakti Shastras" are, but if the 
"Bhakti" relates to some variation of Bhakti yoga, as per a 
prayer-based, reifying approach ... I wonder if there might 
be Theosophists out there who might be wondering if you, 
BAG, might be trying to offer a perspective/opinion to the 
effect that "some roots," (say?), that might be seen (by 
some?) as "leading to Theosophy" (?), might be 
(optionally?) seen as "essentially compatible-enough," 
(say?), with "some roots" (?), leading to Catholicism (?), 
for example? I seem to recall reading in one of your posts 
... was it something about your interest or connection with 
Catholicism ... ? Not that reifying isn't a very popular 
tendency on this planet.

and BAG wrote: <<... HPB could recognize similarities 
between the Eastern Indian-related and the Mediterranean 
Purusha & Prakriti Traditions. However her hostility to 
THEISM in general, and her contempt for the 
Judeo-Catholic Traditions in particular, prevented her 
from grasping the true significance of the apparent 
connections. >>

I thought she explained clearly enough what her "hostility"
(as you put it) was all about. 

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 
Theosophists, 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 (except 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! 

Or is it that there are people out there who have developed 
the notion that we all might karmically (or otherwise?) 
benefit from somehow integrating Theosophy into present 
day Catholicism, for example ... meaning, in effect (?), 
that all, or most, or many Theosophic writings might as 
well be destroyed (?), or at least not read much (?), since 
the essence (raison d'etre) of such writings is (or tends to 
be?) too confusing, too misleading, too esoteric, etc? 

Speculatively,
Mauri