Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00751)

Morten,

Thank you for your latest email.

Many of your questions are so open-ended that
I would hesitate to try to answer them because
I am unsure exactly what you are asking and also
it would take far too long to answer many of your 
questions properly. Sorry I do not have that kind of time.

Nevertheless, I will try to comment on some of your
statements. I give three different statements from
your last email that are related to the original 
quote from HPB.

Your three statements are as follows:

STATEMENT 1

"The meaning has changed because. What Blavatsky and 
K. H. said at that time was said with relation to the 
audience, time and world in which, their views was 
presented back then. Today we have a different audience 
which will interpret the words differently if someone 
would put them forward today without telling about the 
past. It is the quoted words in your email we talk about:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/15668";

STATEMENT 2

"Well I did ponder, and reached the conclusion that
these words by Blavatsky and K. H. you quote in your 
email was created with a SHORTer timeframe in mind
and NOT a longer timeframe, so that they just could 
be used today as a valid presentation. And I disagree 
upon that they could be interpreted as saying:
Everything else than what Blavatsky or the Mahatma's 
have written are NOT valid theosophical teaching,
unless THEY have said different."

"Let us at least admit, that there was reason to 
reach the conclusion, that such was the motive with 
your email, that you expected the longer timeframe 
to be allright. I just disagree with you. And I have 
tried to explain why.
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/char_lit.htm";

STATEMENT 3

We have to distinguish between the adoption of "the 
false ideas of a personal God and a personal, carnalized
Saviour, as the groundwork of their teaching" in 
Blavatsky's time of living and Bailey's acitivities in 
her time, where she in fact counteracted TS in developing 
into something quite false and misleading. Namely a popery 
or a Maitreya cult. The fact that Bailey herself - later - 
wrote a great deal on the Reappaerence of the Christ in 
"the flesh", do not make her teaching more valid - unless 
we understand it as a teaching created as a DESIGN - to
attract - newcomers of a certain kind (ie. those with a Christian 
cultural background or brokenhearted Krishnamurti followers)."

Before I comment on the 3 statements above, I want to requote
HPB's comment that you are responding to.

The quote is as follows:

------------------------------------------------

". . . A new and rapidly growing danger. . . is
threatening . . . the spread of the pure Esoteric
Philosophy and knowledge. . . . I allude to
those charlatanesque imitations of Occultism and
Theosophy. . . . By pandering to the prejudices
of people, and especially by adopting the false
ideas of a personal God and a personal, carnalized
Saviour, as the groundwork of their teaching, the
leaders of this 'swindle' (for such it is) are
endeavoring to draw men to them and in particular
to turn Theosophists from the true path."

". . . A close examination will assuredly reveal. . .
materials largely stolen . . . from Theosophical
writings. . . [and] distorted and falsified so as
to be palmed off on the unwary as revelations of
new and undreamed of truths. But many will neither
have the time nor the opportunity for such a thorough
investigation; and before they become aware of the
imposture they may be led far from the Truth. . . .
Nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the
garbled and distorted versions disfigured to suit
the prejudices and tastes of men in general."

H. P. Blavatsky in "E.S. Instruction No. I.", 1889.
Quoted from: http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/ests1p2.htm
------------------------------------------------

Now my comments.

First of all, you have NOT really shown why HPB's above
words are no longer relevant. Maybe I am missing
out on something??? 

The teaching about "a personal, carnalized Saviour"
goes back almost twenty centuries. Why her comments
on this teaching are not relevant now or during Bailey's 
time is a mystery to me.

You write:

"What Blavatsky and K. H. said at that time was said 
with relation to the audience, time and world in which, 
their views was presented back then. Today we have 
a different audience which will interpret the words 
differently . . . . "

But this kind of argument could be applied to EVERYTHING
Blavatsky and K.H. wrote. 

In fact this type of argument could be applied
to everything ever written!

One could start quibbling over each and every
word and the end result would be deadlock.

Much more could be said on this part of your argument.

Having been a student of Blavatsky's writings
for several decades, I find that most all of what
she wrote is understandable if one takes the time
and effort to read and study her material.

And how many years need to go by before 
your "audience, time and world" argument applies?

5 years, 10 years, or ????

In other words, HPB wrote the above words in 1889.
So in 1894 were they still valid? Or what about
in 1899? 

You apparently say that in the 1920s and 1930s
the meaning of her words had changed or that there
was a different audience that would understand her
words differently.

But you do not give any specifics that would validate
this statement of yours. 

You write that HPB's words were "created with 
a SHORTer timeframe in mind." But how do 
you know that? Maybe it is true, BUT you
do not tell us how that can be objectively
determined. How do you know HPB "created" those
words "with a shorter timeframe in mind"??

All I can say is that I find her above words
understandable in 2004 and see no good reason
to think otherwise.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc