Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00200)

One might wonder at Mauri's motives in attempting to dismiss BA G's point of
view as some sort of RC in thin disguise.

Any such wonderings at motives might give rise to a speculation that while
one theosophist might find HPB's theosophy comfortable largely because it is
NOT Roman Catholicism (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), another
theosophist might seek to compare, contrast, and learn from the synthesis
which is a central tenet of theosophy. One may certainly ask where the
"divine" in the Divine Wisdom resides without being considered an
interloper.

In my opinion, "caring for HPB" has little to do with a sincere search for
the truth.

Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mauri" <mhart@idirect.ca>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 11:20 AM
Subject: Theos-World re BAG's motives?


> 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
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>