Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00031)

June 2

Dear Friend:

THEOSOPHY began in antiquity.  

H P B was a Messenger bringing THEOSOPHY back to us for study.  

She traces its roots in ISIS UNVEILED and in the SECRET DOCTRINE she deploys
(its history and doctrines. (see S D I 272-3 for the "source" of THEOSOPHY
).

Phenomena prove no more than they can be made to occur by Adepts. Also that
there are areas of wisdom we are still ignorant of.

I don't think anyone looks on THEOSOPHY as a joke -- if they have the
perseverance to even read it carefully.

Thanks for your good views,

Best wishes,


Dallas
 

-----Original Message-----

From: prmoli
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 1:45 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: me-centric versus all-of-us-centric



One underlying assumption in Steve's discourse is that Theosophy 
begun with Blavatsky. Did it? Did she ever claim that? 

Another assumption is that the phenomena produced by Blavatsky can either 
prove or disprove the validity of Theosophy as a systemic teaching.

 
Is it so? Are the teachings about the fundamental oneness of all 
existence, of material, intellectual and spiritual evolution, of the 
intrinsic lawfulness of the universe and of the fundamental identity 
between human consciousness and the universal consciousness to be 
pronounced invalid and wrong because a particular phenomenon or 
phenomena cannot be replicated?

Perhaps when we say that Theosophy is a joke that tells more about 
our own world view than what Theosophy really is.


Pedro

==================

> --- , "Eldon B Tucker" wrote:

> > We could also say, for example, "Read again carefully. It 
> > is a fact that most of the people in the world who are aware of 
Zen think Zen is a joke and Zen Masters are clowns."

 
> It is serious business but there is an aspect to it that verges on 
> humor and I would wager no Zen master would attempt to disabuse you 
> if that is what you thought.
> 
> I had never seen Blavatsky described as a clown until I read what 
> Bart and Leon had to say. If the whole thing was a joke, that does 
> raise a serious doubt in my mind as to whether or not anyone should 
> take it seriously. Having been consistently unable to fnd any 
first hand evidence that anyone can materialize anything, the 
> materialization phenomena seem less credible to me than the other 
> theosophical phenomena and in need of more corroborating evidence 
> than the others. I thought the teacup incident was pretty solid, 
but Bart has offered an ingenious explanation which proves I was wrong.
> 
> A more importan issue is whether Blavatsky or anyone else (forget 
> about Leadbeater) was clairvoyant. If that was a mere uut on, then 
> the whole system, or most of it anyway, falls at least halfway to 
the ground.  

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