Anand, do you have a problem with .....?
Sep 21, 2004 08:50 AM
by Daniel H. Caldwell
In one of your postings, you wrote:
"Masters and HPB never claimed infallibility
or authority. According to them in TS everybody
is free to accept or reject any writing
including SD and Isis. So Daniel's efforts
of creating authority under sweet name of
'original teaching' are ridiculous."
And in one of your more recent postings
to Dallas, you commented:
" This word 'original writers' may have been used
in small group. I don't agree with this phrase
because every writing has some origin."
Anand, do you object to Madame Blavatsky using
the phrase "original teachings" as in the following
from THE SECRET DOCTRINE?
"Mistakes have now to be checked by the
original teachings and corrected. . . ."
Furthermore, WHY did she use that phrase
Again it appears you object to "creating authority."
but you have failed to comment (or to object) to
H.P. Blavatsky's use of the word as in the
following excerpts from THE SECRET DOCTRINE:
"When the present work was commenced, the writer, feeling sure that
the speculation about Mars and Mercury was a mistake, applied to the
Teachers by letter for explanation and an AUTHORITATIVE version.
Both came in due time...."
". . . Again, here are more extracts from another letter written by
the same AUTHORITY."
"Those alone, whom we call adepts, who know how to direct
their mental vision and to transfer their consciousness -- physical
and psychic both -- to other planes of being, are able to speak with
AUTHORITY on such subjects." Caps added.
Anand, was H.P. Blavatsky trying to "create authority"??
And when pondering on the above, one might also keep in mind what
Master KH told Colonel Olcott about THE SECRET DOCTRINE:
"Every mistake or erroneous notion, corrected and explained by her
[HPB] from the works of other theosophists was corrected by me, or
under my instruction."
It would appear that the Master K.H. was concerned enough about
the "original teachings" that he instructed HPB to correct various
MISTAKEN notions or misunderstandings that had developed about
those "original teachings".
Six years before in 1882, the Master K.H. was also concerned about
the "original teachings". He wrote:
"I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by
Mr. H[ume]. I read his three essays or chapters. . . . if he
publishes what I read, I will have H.P.B. or Djual Khool deny the
whole thing; as I cannot permit our sacred philosophy to be so
Anand, do you ALSO object to the Master K.H. being concerned about
the erroneous notions or disfigured presentations of the "original
teachings" ["our sacred philosophy"] and his instructions for the
mistakes to be corrected?
And by KH doing the above, do you believe that Master KH was
ALSO "creating authority"?
These are just some of the questions and comments I find coming to
the forefront of my mind as I try to understand your comments and
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application