Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01391)

Only when you compare apples to oranges can you say that the Secret Doctrine 
was written in any sense for the purpose of "liberating" anyone. The only 
liberation intended was liberating people from their ignorance of the true nature 
of reality. 

There was no intent by HPB or the Masters to liberate people from their own 
personal karma, nor was it their intention to form any religion or yogic order 
through the teachings of the Secret Doctrine. It simply taught what its sub 
tile said -- i.e., "The Synthesis of Science religion and philosophy." Itdid 
hthis by giving us a true understanding of the fundamental metaphysics behind 
every religion or yoga practice. It did not intend to teach those practices. 
Therefore, the book was purely intellectual in nature and it furnished the 
background only for the self enlightening teaching of the Heart Doctrine as a means 
to creating "a nucleus of universal brotherhood" -- the practice for which 
which was delegated to the Voice of the Silence and other yoga teachings, from 
Patanjali's yoga aphorisms to Lao Tse's Tao Te Ching, etc., and on to whatever 
means one could devise through their own self devised and self determined 
efforts-- even if that meant finding a teacher, such as Idries Shah, to help them 
find their own self realizaition or enlightenment.


In a message dated 04/21/05 1:27:04 PM, global-theosophy@stofanet.dk writes:

>Hallo Leon and all,
>
>My views are:
>
>Leon wrote:
>>" If all those who think Blavatsky made serious mistakes or that she wrote
>> about timeless theosophical metaphysics along with its philosophy and
>its 
>> ethics,
>> for any particular "TIME, PLACE, PEOPLE and CIRCUMSTANCES" -- they are
>>all sadly mistaken. "
>
>I do not think I have said that Blavatsky made serious mistakes. Although
>everything is relative.
>
>My view is, that one should know people by their fruits. If their fruits
>has been to create cults
>of an emotional nature and the like - we can certainly question of they
>have provided
>some good and digestable fruits. Perhaps Blavatsky made some mistakes we
>do 
>not know about,
>but which the Masters know about.
>What is relevant are whether her teachings liberates the individual Seekers.
>
>Some Seekers might not need
>to seek out Blavatsky's teaching when viewed in a dead-letter manner using
>mere theosophical terminology.
>That would be a serious mistake for them, because they will go and waste
>some time - before they actually can
>benefit from her teachings.
>
>To say, that Blavatsky didn't write her teachings from any particular point
>of view
>related to "TIME, PLACE, PEOPLE and CIRCUMSTANCES"- when viewed in a 
>DEAD-LETTER manner -
>
>is a mistake or at least to in agreement with the truth. When the teachings
>are viewed in a non-dead-letter manner
>much of her teachings are timeless no doubt.
>
>I do hope this was helpful.
>But, maybe not all of you can understand this.
>
>from
>
>M. Sufilight
>
>