Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00586)

I have provided the quotation from the links below.


Members of this group have made specific personal accusations and 
insulting comments to and about me, which is entirely different than 
my below general critique of the insulting and abusive behavior of 
Theosophists here in general. I have not named any SPECIFIC person in 
my below statement, but I have been directly, specifically, 
personally insulted and abused by people here on this egroup. I have 
made a general statement,'If the shoe fits, wear it'. 

- BA G

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "D. H. Caldwell <info@b...>" 
<info@b...> wrote:
> In his latest posting to Theos-Talk, BAG writes:
> 
> "I will not be responding to any more insulting or accusatory 
> comments or questions on this site, so don't bother writing them at 
> or to me." 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/10737
> 
> But compare and contrast what BAG wrote above with HIS OWN REMARKS 
> about Theosophists in his interview posted on two different sites:
> 
> http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9/thoughtsystems.html
> http://www.raphaelvishanu-world.at/thoughtsystems.html
> 
> Daniel

BA G's statement from the above links

The recent claim by some Theosophists is that their teachings are 
hidden behind the use of "blinds," but what about truth ? 'There is 
no religion higher than the truth' is the Theosophical Society 
motto! What is the moral character of anyone who practices and/or 
accepts deception and lying as a way of life ? 

According to the Bhakti Traditions from which Blavatsky borrowed 
many of her terms, dishonesty or duplicity is considered tamasic. 
Everything depends on TRUTH, and begins with SELF-TRUTH, which is 
another term for HUMILITY. The very concept of scriptural "blinds", 
secret societies, and a master employing duplicity is unheard of in 
the Sattvic exoteric Bhakti Traditions, in which Godhead is not an 
elitist, Who is only approachable through secret societies, and wants 
to 'hide.' Hiding anything is part of the function of MAYA. Human 
deceit and lying which create illusions ARE 'MAYAVIC'. HPB and her 
MASTERS' use of "blinds" was pure MAYA-VADA or 'Path of Maya' 
mayavic behavior. She and her Masters were masters of illusion / 
maya, in that they deluded many people with their illusions. 

Also, which of the theosophists that were involved in the discussion 
in question has ever studied any of the ancient sources ? When they 
have studied what I have in the depth, then they will be able to 
understand what 'original' Buddhism and Hinduism were. If they have 
never studied authentic South Asian Religions or read the Rig Veda in 
the Sanskrit, how will they know that the Mayavadis have translated 
the Deity name Purusha 'man' ? How will they know the truth about 
the Vaishnava Vedas and Puranas ? How can they understand the 
Vaishnavism of Pure Land Buddhist Sanskrit texts, if they know 
nothing about Vaishnavism or the Vaishnava and Buddhist Sanskrit 
texts themselves ? For example the Sankaracaryas are Shaivites by 
religious genealogy. The Atheistic Shaivites (there are Theistic ones 
too) appropriated the Vedas, Upanishads, Samhitas, Bhagavat Purana, 
Mahabharata etc. From the Vaishnavas and reinterpreted them. 

Mahayana Buddhism originally embraced its Vaishnava heritage. 
Recovering and restoring the Vaisnava genealogy / heritage of Pure 
Land Buddhism means empowering hundreds of millions of people with a 
new sense of mutual recognition and respect. 

As far as many of the prophecies Blavatsky / her Masters made are 
concerned...have the Chinese died out yet ? Take her prophecies one 
at a time and look at them without any modernist reinterpretations. 
The Nostradamus analogy is a good one. By the same process 
the 'prophecies' of HPB / her Masters are being reinterpreted and 
made to fit the subsequent historical realities. 

There are Theosophists who are using Sanskrit words, but without 
ever learning the language or reading any of the earliest Sanskrit 
Buddhist or 'Hindu' scriptures in the Sanskrit, or even a Roman 
transliteration of Sanskrit. In any scholarly discourse about 
ancient source works, for a serious discussion, it is expected that 
the participants would have some knowledge of the language of the 
original sources, and STUDY THEM DIRECTLY. HPB / her Masters 
constantly referred to the Sanskrit Vaishnava Scriptures, which they 
had no real mastery of, and studied through secondary sources 
(Advaiti Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs). In the case of 
their Theosophical followers, the scholars of Theosophy who debated 
me are generally intimately familiar with Theosophical pseudo-
Sanskrit jargon, the specialized Theosophical Society meanings of 
the Sanskrit words, but seem wholly unfamiliar with the original 
source texts, uses and meanings of the Sanskrit words they are 
using. In my experience with the scholars in the Theosophical group 
where I discussed the Mahatma Letters and the "Stanzas of Dzyan", 
none seemed to know the textual sources or original authentic 
meanings of the few Sanskrit words in their vocabularies. How, if 
they have not studied the Sanskrit of the original sources, can they 
even argue the meanings of the Sanskrit words they are using? 

A general observation is that there seems to be little work of real 
social significance going on in any of the Theosophical organizations 
worldwide. In addition, among Theosophists, I have seen some anti-
Semitism, and people defending child molester gurus, including the 
Theosophical Society leader Leadbeater.