Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00591)

Jan 24 BAG wrote, partly (in small, small part): <<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 ? >>

Yes, there would seem to be many people out there who might 
give the impression (to some of us, maybe?) that they might 
be better off not confusing themselves with the roots or 
esoteric aspects of Theosophy, in that their efforts to 
understand about those roots in terms of exoteric logic and 
literal methods, comparatively alone, seems to have led them 
to various rather apparently literal and/or frustrating 
conclusions. There seem to be (plenty of?) examples of people 
who, in spite of their high mainstream-scholastic, religious, 
exoteric achievements, don't seem to have gathered much in 
the way of clues about the "deeper" significance of 
Theosophy as brought to us by HPB/Masters. So when such 
people display their frustrations, as on these lists ... apparently 
that's all part of karma, too, for all concerned? What can we 
say? We all try?

Speculatively,
Mauri