Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00259)

Hallo all,

My views are:

Would you draw the similar conclusion - based on the fact that she didn't
also take an african native into the inner circle ???
I think your below answer isn't quite valid.

But I agree, that the footnote (*) remark by HPB in The Secret Doctrine vol
2., page 471 --- still continues to baffle me !

As I said in a earlier email, --- at the time of writing The Secret Doctrine
1886-8 (and other books and articles for that matter) it was common practise
in the english parliment to consider the native africans and other
non-europeans
as non-intelligent and ignorant and of a lower nature. And when you make a
book to a certain audience in such a society, which should have a clean
impact, you would have had to take that into consideration, wouldn't you ?

The writings and statements made by HPB belong to another time in the human
evolution than the one we presentlyu are dealing with.
Do you not agree ?

from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "stevestubbs" <stevestubbs@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 8:38 PM
Subject: Theos-World RE: Re: "Well, hell most Jews are now atheists and
homosexuals. ....


> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > If HPB would had taken a Zionist Jew in to her inner circle, she
> would have
> > commited the militant racist fault, by supporting such a dangerous
> scheme.
> > She has stated, that there is no room in TS to the un-teachable
> fanatic
> > bigots, or something like that.
>
> That statement only makes sense if one assumes that all Jews are "un-
> teachable fanatic bigots, or something like that." My point was that
> if she had allowed Jews into her inner circle that would have
> completely annulled any evidence that she was antiSemitic which one
> could find in her writings and which certain other individuals have
> repeatedly posted to this list. She did not do so. Given that her
> whole system starts with a kabbalistic framework (her seven
> principles are clearly the sepiroth of construction as she admits
> herself) that seems odd to this observer. It is also suggestive that
> the only living kabbalistic commentators she quoted were gentiles
> such as MacGregor Mathers.
>
> One also wonders, with Blavatsky as with Bailey, why a specifically
> European prejudice would have been represented as so important to
> monks sequestered in the mountains of Tibet? This is much less
> important in Blavatsky's work than with Bailey, since Blavatsky did
> not claim everything she wrote was channeled from Tibet. Ir is
> treasonable to assert that just because she said something one cannot
> automatically assume a mahatma ordered it said.
>
> > Also: The racist often points their fingers at others claiming them
> to be
> > racists.
> > (Not that you are one Steve.)
>
> I am xurrently pointing all ten fingers, but will not say at whom.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>