Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00005)

Hi Wry,

Will reply in between. 

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "wry" <wry1111@e...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> Respectfully, so you are not inspired by her writings, so what? Many
> > people are. her Voice of the Silence (
> > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/voice/voice.htm ) is a booklet
> > full of spiritual wisdom, and hardly confused. Then again, nobody 
is
> > asking anybody to give up their religion. Theosophy "only" claims 
to
> > help people get in touch with the spiritual dimension behind each
> > religion. Granted, that is a huge claim, but I don't think you 
are in
> > a position to judge Blavatskian theosophy, as of yet. Her work is
> > complex and has absolutely no claim of even being complete.
> 
> WRY: Actually, work has been amazingly easy to evaluate as the 
> flaws repeat
> themselves over and over and stand out like a sore thumb, and 
> again, I have
> never discounted thevalue of her work, but it is no longer time-
> appropriate
> and there are other problems. I am not saying her work is of no 
> value, but
> it's major flaw is that it creates a strong affect, that of 
> eternalism,
> which people easily get bonded to, and this form of eternalism, in 
> my
> opinion, has nothing to do with transformation or what it is about, 
> and even retards it. 
Ok, hold a minute. What do you mean by eternalism? The rest of this 
becomes incomprehensible because you don't explain this. 
> Because I do not believe Madame Blavatsky completely understood 
> certain
> concepts and how to communicate about certain ideas, it is 
> questionable to
> me that her writing will help most people to get in touch with "the
> spiritual dimension behind each religion." It is way too heady and
> intellectual, among other things. It may even be better to 
> participate fully
> in one religion and ponder its teachings.
You are flying all over the place here. One moment you say religions 
lead to war, the other that it is best that people stick to one 
religion. Which is it? 
Anyhow, which concepts did Blavatsky not understand?
Which concepts did she not communicate clearly. Let me rephrase that: 
of course her writings (especially Isis and the Secret Doctrine) are 
difficult works, and they aren't examples of how books are usually 
written. I mean, logic is missing, the threads intertwine and 
intercept, and only a glimmer of understanding is gleaned after years 
of studying, in most cases. I don't think anybody disputes this. 
Except, some people (myself among them) find in blavatsky, after 
those years of study, ideas and inspiration that just isn't found 
elsewhere (including Krishnamurti). That you haven't found that, does 
not mean her work is illconceaved. She had a reason for writing this 
way. Some of which can be found at:
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/metaphys/th-bowen.htm

> WRY: Maybe not much, now that you mention it, but he rejected 
> theosophy and there was a reason. 
The whole of Aryel Sanat's work seems dedicated to showing that he 
only rejected the theosophy he knew, which wasn't Blavatskyan 
theosophy, but Besant/Leadbeater/etc. theosophy. The differences are 
marked. Mostly the aim of these two streams is different. Blavastkyan 
theosophy aims at transformation, Besantian and Leadbeaterian 
theosophy seems content at ethical living. Not having studied that 
work, you lack in background reading. 
> Too bad a great world teacher who came out of that
> movement could not continue to promote the movement, not that he 
was an
> authority anymore than HBP, you or I, but his teaching was alive. He
> explained things for anyone, so they could be changed, if they 
enquired
> deeply. On this list we have people talking about being immortal 
and finding
> the light and saying maybe we talked to Jesus in a previous 
incarnation.
> There is little enquiry here, and also LOTS of infighting which has 
> nothing to do with me.
Katinka:
So, why are you here? What has their infighting to do with you? It is 
precisely why I have not been active on this list. But that does not 
mean all of theosophy is irrelavant for everybody. 
> 
> >You can hardly blame
> > one theosophist for what another is saying. Theosophy is one of 
those
> > religions where people can have totally opposite views of reality 
(or
> > myth) and still be members, or even leaders of the Theosophical
> > Society.
> 
> WRY: IS it a religion? I don't think so.
Katinka:
agreed. see previous post. 
> 
> That freedom is a much cherished quality.
> 
> WRY: Too bad I am afraid to speak what I see as the truth on here.
Katinka:
You speak of being afraid to speak the truth, but you are hardly the 
most quiet of people here. 
Anyhow - the other people are also free to speak their minds, even if 
it means they do a lot of infighting. I think that is why Eldon runs 
this list the way he does. I can respect that. Can you?

Katinka