Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00257)

May 8th 2005

Dear Bart:

I wonder if you could let us have examples of these distinctions you see:


You wrote:

1	"The first is that they filtered the beliefs through the sieve 
of their own prejudices "

2	"(frankly, Blavatsky and even the Mahatmas were 
often guilty of the same thing, but at least those were the exceptions, 
and usually stood out like a sore thumb from the rest of the writings)."


3	"The second is that they went too far, going from simple (where 
irrelevant details are dropped) to simplistic (where relevant details 
are dropped). "

4	"One of the biggest problems was, in emphasizing the 
contrast between parts of continuities, they described them as if they 
were completely separate entities, which kind of goes against the 1st 
Proposition of the Secret Doctrine ..."

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

It would help me to understand your 4 points if some references or examples
could be given.

I don't quite understand what you are driving at.

Best wishes as always, 

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: On Behalf Of Bart Lidofsky
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 8:41 AM
To: 
Subject: Do those who study Blavatsky's writing become fundamentalists

Anand Gholap wrote:

> That means when you supported those authors you believed you were 
> right. Now you don't think so. So truth is for most of the students 
> is subjective or relative. You should say " I now think .... is right 
> but I may be wrong because at other moment I believed opposite views 
> were right"

Well, from my point of view, Besant and Leadbeater tried to simplify

what Blavatsky and the Mahatmas wrote. However, there were two major 
problems. 

The first is that they filtered the beliefs through the sieve 
of their own prejudices 

(frankly, Blavatsky and even the Mahatmas were 
often guilty of the same thing, but at least those were the exceptions, 
and usually stood out like a sore thumb from the rest of the writings).


The second is that they went too far, going from simple (where 
irrelevant details are dropped) to simplistic (where relevant details 
are dropped). 

One of the biggest problems was, in emphasizing the 
contrast between parts of continuities, they described them as if they 
were completely separate entities, which kind of goes against the 1st 
Proposition of the Secret Doctrine (Alice Bailey went even further in 
this direction).

They certainly did make contributions, but at best, they created a 
bridge to Theosophy.

Bart