Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00612)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "D. H. Caldwell <info@b...>" 
<info@b...> wrote:
> Occult 
> blinds are NOT deceptions or lies.

That is probably true, but Blavatsky represented them as deceptions. 
So to her that is what they were, which means deceiving was her 
intent. The question is, why anyone would have thought this 
necessary or desirable.

> I doubt that Blavatsky was even aware of Pure Land Buddhism.

She constantly made use of the term "devachan". which literally 
means "Pure Land." As someone who claims expertise in Sanskrrit, it 
surprises me that you would have missed that. She also read Beal's 
CATENA OF BUDDHIST SCRIPTURES FROM THE CHINESE and copied stuff from 
that book into the mahatma letters she wrote. I don't see how she 
could have studied uddhism without having heard of the Pure Land, 
whether she belonged to that sect or not.

> <<<Everything depends on TRUTH, and begins with SELF-TRUTH, which 
is 
> another term for HUMILITY.>>>

In fairness, Blavatsky quoted what she claimed was an old Buddhist 
proverb: "There is only one truth, and that truth is unchanging, 
namely that there is no truth." That is a rather sophisticated 
epistemological statement, but it does not explain the use of studied 
deception.

> Many teachings from the Esoteric Tradition are dangerous and need 
to 
> be hidden from those unprepared to receive them. For 
> example: "Justice exists only in the human mind, and karma has 
> nothing to do with justice" is a dangerous teaching

And one which I think should be more widely disseminated than it is.