Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00390)

Hallo Paul and all,

My views are:

I disagree with the below view of yours Paul.
Let me show the readers why.
---

In the below email we have:
"> > And HPB a Category 2:
> >
> > > 2. The sincere charlatan who believes in magic but occasionally
> > > practices trickery both to enhance his presentation and more
> > > easily convince others of his powers.
> >
> > Is this correct?"

And you Paul answered:
"Yes, by her own admission."

And later you, - Paul - (in another email) referred to the following link
and text from Blavatsky to show, that this answer of yours was true:
"It is very rarely that Mahatma K.H. dictated verbatim; and when He did
there remained the few sublime passages found in Mr. Sinnett's letters
from Him. The rest, He would say, write so and so, and the chela
wrote, often without knowing one word of English, as I am now made to
write Hebrew and Greek and Latin, etc. [All of which appear in
profusion in The Secret Doctrine] Therefore the only thing I can be
reproached with-a reproach I am ever ready to bear though I have not
deserved it, having been simply the obedient and blind tool of our
occult laws and regulations-is of having (1) used Master's name when I
thought my authority would go for naught, when I sincerely believed
acting agreeably to Master's intentions, (4) and for the good of the
cause; and (2) of having concealed that which the laws and regulations
of my [occult] pledges did not permit me so far to reveal; (3) perhaps
(again for the same reason) of having insisted that such and such a
note was from Master written in His own handwriting, all the time
thinking Jesuitically, I confess, "Well, it is written by His order
and in His handwriting, after all, why shall I go and explain to
these, who do not, cannot understand the truth, and perhaps only make
matters worse."
http://www.blavatsky.net/forum/taylor/tibetanSources14.htm


My answer, ponderings and questions:
Could it be so, that Blavatsky deliberately and with extreme cunning
precision revealed this "fact", while she
knew that doing so would create a certain spiritual or theosophical impact
later on?

In the above link Blavatsky at the beginning wrote:
" This morning before the receipt of your letter at 6 o'clock, I was
permitted and told by Master to make you understand at last, you and all the
sincere, truly devoted Theosophists, "as you sow, so you shall reap", the
personal and private questions and prayers, answers(3) framed in the mind of
those whom such matters can yet interest, whose minds are not yet entirely
blank to such worldly terrestrial questions, answers by chelas and novices,
often something reflected from my own mind, for the Masters would not stoop
for one moment to give a thought to individual, private matters relating but
to one or even ten persons, their welfare, woes and blisses in this world of
Maya, to nothing except questions of really universal importance. It is all
you Theosophists who have dragged down in your minds the ideals of our
Masters; you who have unconsciously and with the best of intentions and full
sincerity of good purpose, desecrated Them, by thinking for one moment, and
believing that They would trouble Themselves with your business matters,
sons to be born, daughters to be married, houses to be built, etc. etc. And
yet, all those of you who have received such communications, being nearly
all sincere (those who were not have been dealt with according to other
special laws) you had a right, knowing of the existence of Beings Who you
thought could easily help you, to seek help from Them, to address Them once
that a monotheist addresses his personal God, desecrating the Great Unknown
a million times above the Masters, by asking Him (or It) to help him with a
good crop, to slay his enemy and send him a son or daughter; and having such
a right in the abstract sense, They could not spurn you off, and refuse
anwering you of not Themselves, then by ordering a chela [disciple] to
satisfy the addresses to the best of his or her's (chela's) ability."
---

I am just pondering:
Saying "as you sow, so you shall reap", was she, Blavatsky, then also in a
certain sense referring to the karmic facts - which would govern the
theosophical movements further life and existence?
And was it because of this karmic fact, that she deliberately (yet
cautiously) revealed herself to be, what you, Paul, agrees upon as being a
"sincere charlatan", - although she was maybe not exactly that if one reads
the text carefully?

I say this, Because even the present day definitions of the word "charlatan"
do not cover the acts done by Blavatsky.
So I will conclude that I disagree unless someone can show me such a
definition.
So Paul, - I suggest, that we do NOT smear the old womans name, because she
was kindhearted and wellmeaning - and even suffered for doing what she did,
because she was not yet officially a Master.
I disagree as much as I know the Masters to be a real deal.
Even if none other than I dare disagree.

But of course we are all entitled to our views Paul - under the law of Karma
that is. A law, which apperently not all of you think much off.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...and Blavatsky + Morya smiling...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 6:33 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Pious fraud, sincere charlatan (new bio of Joseph
Smith)


> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "stevestubbs" <stevestubbs@y...> wrote:
>
> > Interesting theory. I assume you are saying CWL is a Category 1
> > hurricane, i.e.:
> >
> > > 1. The charlatan who may or may not believe in magic but
> > > uses its vocabulary and props while employing trickery
> > > for profit, power, and prestige.
> >
> Correct.
>
> > And HPB a Category 2:
> >
> > > 2. The sincere charlatan who believes in magic but occasionally
> > > practices trickery both to enhance his presentation and more
> > > easily convince others of his powers.
> >
> > Is this correct?
> Yes, by her own admission.
> >
> > And where do you place Joseph Smith (I would assume he is no better
> > than CWL.)
>
> Vogel considers him a well-intentioned fraud who believed in his own
> divine mission; that sounds right to me. That would put him a step
> above CWL, who like Paul Twitchell seems to have practiced deception
> without any "good" reasons. 2, but barely.
>
> And does Vogel have any theory why anyone would want to
> > believe in Smith's stuff?
> >
> At the time it was published, the BOM was not as ridiculous as it is
> now. I don't think he addresses why contemporary believers believe,
> focusing on Joseph's lifetime. Damdifino how anyone can find the BOM
> credible today.
>
> BTW Cayce, like Mary Baker Eddy, falls into the sincere but deluded
> category. Yet I'd consider him a 4 rather than a 3 for a couple of
> reasons. He was plagued by self-doubt and by no means a true believer
> in his own readings, whereas Mrs. Eddy does not seem to have
> considered herself fallible. And taking his advice seems to have been
> a lot better for people's health than taking Mrs. Eddy's. (My mind is
> open about whether or not he really demonstrated clairvoyance.)
>
> > affiliation, including people who are excluded for whatever reason
> > from the mainstream of society. It is possible that this intense
> > need for affiliation is what binds people to absurd systems like
> > Smith's.
> >
> Is Larry Kolts still here? Perhaps he can comment.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>