Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt00674)

Krishtar,

Anand wrote:

"...Why Masters say certain thing can not be 
understood unless one has great wisdom. Daniel 
and most other members take literal meaning of 
Masters' every sentence. Literal meaning and
actual meaning are not always same. In case of 
Leadbeater and Besant, literal meaning and actual 
meaning are generally same. So they are
more suitable for ordinary reader."

Is Anand implying that most other members
don't have "great wisdom" but that he does??!!

Anand also says that we should NOT take what
the Masters say literally but notice he
does NOT tell us exactly what the actual
meaning of their statements are.

So exactly what does the Master KH mean
when he writes:

"I have also noted, your thoughts about the 'Secret Doctrine.' Be
assured that what she [Blavatsky] has not annotated from scientific
and other works, we have given or suggested to her. Every mistake or
erroneous notion, corrected and explained by her from the works of
other theosophists was corrected by me, or under my instruction. It
[THE SECRET DOCTRINE]is a more valuable work than its predecessor,
an epitome of occult truths that will make it a source of
information and instruction for the earnest student for long years
to come. . . ."

Notice that the Master tells Olcott that
THE SECRET DOCTRINE is "an epitome of occult TRUTHS
that will make it A SOURCE of information and instruction
for the earnest student for LONG YEARS to come...."
caps added.

How does one reconcile therefore the above statement
with Anand's statement which reads:

"H.P. Blavatsky made many mistakes. These mistakes
were made not just in writing on ordinary matters
but also in most important philosophic writings. . . .
sticking to HPB's vague and inaccurate writing will
be great hindrance in understanding Theosophy. . . .
it is NOT possible to recommend for reading EVEN A SINGLE
BOOK by her." caps added.

Furthermore, I don't believe Anand has
ever documented any of his assertions by listing
the "mistakes" and inaccuracies.

Unless I am missing something here, Anand gives
only vague assertions without any supporting
evidence or documentation.

Therefore it is next to impossible to understand
if he has any reasoning behind his statements or
exactly what that reasoning would be.....

Daniel
http://blavatskyarchives.com