Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00001)

Cass,
Masters called Blavatsky's writing Isis Unveiled as "shadow of 
skeleton (of Truth) " and not soul. Besant and Leadbeater teaching is 
relatively much more complete, it is bones, flesh and the soul of 
Theosophy.
Anand Gholap

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@y...> wrote:
> Anand
> Perhaps you are right, Besant and Leadbeater could be seen as 
stepping stones and are certainly easier to read than Helena, they 
are the bones of theosophy but when the soul needs more nourishing it 
needs the marrow within the bone. 
> Cass
> 
> Anand Gholap <AnandGholap@A...> wrote:
> Jerry,
> People who depend on Blavatsky's writing, takes it seriously keep 
on 
> speculating endlessly, keep on discussing and arguing what she 
means 
> and never reach conclusion. It is such a messy way of writing that 
> has driven many people crazy. Lucky is a person who does not read 
> Blavatsky's writing and does not damage his mind by trying to find 
> meaning in that mess.
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
> wrote:
> > Dear Anand, friends,
> > 
> > While I see little value in simply quoting from essays and 
> declaring the 
> > statements to be right or wrong, a close analysis on an essay is 
> > important in order to correctly understand it. Therefore, I do 
> believe 
> > that there is much value in analyzing, and criticizing 
Theosophical 
> > articles and books. In our study groups, we teach and encourage 
> such a 
> > critical analysis. Such exercises are basic to accurately 
> interpreting 
> > and evaluating what the writer is actually trying to communicate. 
> > 
> > I have posted below a model (but not the last word) of how this 
> kind of 
> > analysis can be done. This is sometimes called "a close reading" 
> of the 
> > text, and is a necessary precursor to an intelligently done 
> criticism of 
> > it. I chose "A Reply to our Critics," in order to contrast the 
> previous 
> > criticism which was not done with a close reading in order to 
show 
> how 
> > such a close reading reveals a tightly reasoned complex of inter-
> related 
> > ideas, the understanding of which brings a much more 
comprehensive 
> > presentation of ideas than could a mere selected quote, taken out 
> of 
> > it's own context. 
> > 
> > I recommend that you read the article for yourself before reading 
> my 
> > rendering of it. That way, you will get more out of it. I welcome 
> > responses and invite you to compose close readings for yourself. 
> It is 
> > a valuable exercise. Enjoy.
> > 
> > 
> > The article in question: "A Reply to Our Critics (Our final 
answer 
> to 
> > several objections)" (BCW III:221-26) is one of HPB's many 
> > editorial-like articles where she is trying to defend Theosophy 
and 
> the 
> > Theosophical Society from the criticism of the popular press, 
which 
> > writes mostly from misconceptions anyway. Such articles are 
> different 
> > from those where she is trying to impart some deeper occult idea. 
> > Rather, in these editorial-like articles, she typically is busy 
> > simultaneously correcting mis-information and pointing to the 
> faulty 
> > thinking which led to the errors in the first place.
> > 
> > The article thus begins by posing HPB's "final answer" to several 
> > repeated criticisms she and Olcott had received concerning The 
> Theosophist:
> > 1) That the use of the word "spiritualism" in the sub-heading of 
> The 
> > Theosophist is intended to attract subscribers from the 
> Spiritualists. 
> > 2) That The Theosophist neglects the use of scientific induction 
> (222); 
> > 3) That the editors do not sufficiently exercise their "editorial 
> right 
> > of selection." (225). 
> > 
> > The first criticism (regarding spiritualism), HPB uses to 
> distinguish 
> > the difference between spiritual perception and communicating 
with 
> the 
> > "dearly departed." 
> > 
> > The second criticism (scientific induction) leads into a 
> discussion on 
> > discerning truth. This is the section upon where Anand posted his 
> > objection.
> > 
> > The third criticism (editorial right of selection) leads into a 
> > discussion on the editorial policy of The Theosophist. 
> > 
> > 
> > 1) The use of the word "spiritualism" in the sub-heading.
> > 
> > The phrase HPB is alluding to in this article but not quoting was 
> on the 
> > title page of every issue of The Theosophist:
> > 
> > "THE THEOSOPHIST A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO ORIENTAL 
PHILOSOPHY, 
> ART, 
> > LITERATURE AND OCCULTISM: EMBRACING MESMERISM, SPIRITUALISM AND 
> OTHER 
> > SECRET SCIENCES."
> > 
> > Now, in this article, HPB refers to the practitioners and/or 
> believers 
> > in the popular notion of spiritualism, i.e. communication with 
the 
> dead, 
> > as "Spiritualists" (BCW III: 222) and those who follow her 
> definition 
> > as "orthodox Spiritualists." Students of Theosophy are aware that 
> HPB 
> > held a special definition of the word "spiritualism" (as she did 
of 
> the 
> > word "occultism") i.e. "the state or condition of mind opposed to 
> > materialism or a material conception of things (Theos. Glossary 
> 285).
> > 
> > Therefore, what HPB means by spiritualism and what her critics 
mean 
> by 
> > spiritualism are two very different things. Note that in the 
> heading of 
> > The Theosophist, spiritualism (i.e. her definition of it) is one 
of 
> the 
> > "secret sciences." Spiritualism (HPB's definition) is a secret 
> science 
> > because the true spiritualist perceives from a spiritual level of 
> > consciousness, as opposed to the material. I believe that HPB's 
> > definition is (or nearly is) what Anand means when he used below, 
> the 
> > word "intuition." However, in the nineteenth century, "intuition" 
> did 
> > not have the spiritual overtones which Anand is putting upon it. 
> > 
> > HPB further quotes a critic for writing that The Theosophist is 
> devoted 
> > to spiritualism (the critic's definition) "in the hopes that it 
> should 
> > do us good service among the Spiritualists" (BCW III:221). HPB 
> quickly 
> > dismisses the criticism by point out that "present day 
subscribers 
> from 
> > 'Spiritual' quarters have not amounted to four percent of our 
> > subscription list (BCW III:221). She then distinguishes her 
> definition 
> > from their's, and points out that her definition "is an insult to 
> their 
> > [Spiritualist's] belief, and in turn [the Spiritualists] ridicule 
> and 
> > oppose us" (BCW III:222).
> > 
> > Therefore, HPB's argument is that from her oft repeated use of 
the 
> term 
> > "spiritualism" as spiritual perception, The Theosophist is a 
> magazine 
> > concerning higher knowledge, not "Spiritualism" in the popular 
> sense.
> > 
> > 
> > 2) The Theosophists neglects the use of Scientific induction. 
> > 
> > HPB counters that "in the face of the many crucial and strictly 
> > scientific experiments made by our most eminent savants, it would 
> take a 
> > wiser sage than King Solomon himself, to decide now between fact 
> and 
> > fiction." As we are all familiar, science is not a oracle 
> of "truth," 
> > but is a methodology (which HPB calls here "scientific 
induction") 
> for 
> > the seeking after truth. In her day, as in ours, scientific 
> theories 
> > are constantly in a state of evolution and constantly challenged 
by 
> > competing theories. 
> > 
> > HPB, therefore, raises the question: "What is truth?" Then 
> examines 
> > different, so called, sources of "truth":
> > 1. Seership (i.e. spiritual perception) (222)
> > 2. prejudicial society (i.e. popular opinion) (223)
> > 3. "exact Science" (223)
> > 4. Religion and theology (223)
> > 
> > 1. Seership. HPB alludes for her example Brutus' vision of 
> his 'evil 
> > genius" promising to "meet him [and defeat his army] in the 
planes 
> of 
> > Philippi" (BCW III:222-23).
> > she points out that while a true vision to Brutus, it was "but a 
> dream 
> > to his slaves." She further points out that the insights of 
> Columbus 
> > (an antipodal continent) and Galileo (the heliocentric system) 
were 
> > denied until proven. Actually HPB's example of Columbus is 
> technically 
> > a poor choice, since Columbus was apparently ignorant of an 
> antipodal 
> > continent (e.g. America) and thought he had landed in India. 
> However, 
> > she does make her point. 
> > 
> > 2. Prejudicial society. She asks: "Are we to abandon it [i.e. 
> truth] 
> > to the mercy and judgment of a prejudiced society constantly 
caught 
> > trying to subvert that which it does not understand; ever seeking 
> to 
> > transform sham and hypocrisy into synonyms of 'propriety' and 
> > 'respectability'?" I think her argument speaks for itself for 
> those who 
> > will hear.
> > 
> > 3. Exact science: She here raises the argument about changing 
> > hypothesis. However, she also warns that scientists, being human, 
> also 
> > have their "...prejudice and preconception" as any other mortals 
> (223). 
> > 
> > 4. Religion and theology: She dismisses with "...her 'seventy-
> times 
> > seven' sects, each claiming and none proving its right to the 
claim 
> of 
> > truth..." and concludes: "...we decline accepting anything on 
> faith" 
> > (224). 
> > 
> > 
> > This discussion of truth open into the consequent policy of the 
> editors 
> > of The Theosophist. That the Editors are not responsible for 
> opinions 
> > of the contributors. HPB concludes that "no mortal man is 
> infallible, 
> > nor claiming that privilege for ourselves, we open our columns to 
> the 
> > discussion of every view and opinion, provided is is not proved 
> > absolutely supernatural."
> > 
> > HPB, at this point distinguishes opinion (society), hypothesis 
> > (science), and faith (religion) from fact. She states: "Fact is 
> the 
> > only tribunal we submit to and recognize it without appeal. And 
> before 
> > that tribunal a Tyndall and an ignoramus stand on a perfect par." 
> In 
> > other words, no one has a monopoly on truth because of their 
> education 
> > or scientific training. 
> > 
> > Therefore, HPB is paving the way to make the point that we can 
> discern 
> > facts by contrasting ideas. She writes: "Contrast alone can 
enable 
> us 
> > to appreciate things in their own right value and unless a judge 
> > compares notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a 
correct 
> > decision." Notice that HPB is not guaranteeing a correct 
> decision. She 
> > has previously discussed human shortcomings such a prejudice, 
which 
> > bring her quote from Horace: "Dum vitant stuli vitia, in 
contraria 
> > current (while striving to shun one vice, fool run to its 
> opposite)" 
> > (225). Basically she is asking her critics to keep an open mind 
> and 
> > hear all sides of the story. 
> > 
> > From here, she enters into discussing the consequences of being 
> closed 
> > minded, i.e. "dogmatic" and argues:
> > 
> > "For one man to demand from another that he shall believe like 
> himself, 
> > whether in a question of religion or science is supremely unjust 
> and 
> > despotic. Besides, it is absurd. For it amounts to exacting that 
> the 
> > brains of the convert, his organs of perception, his whole 
> organization, 
> > in short, be reconstructed precisely on the model of that of his 
> > teacher, and that he shall have the same temperament and mental 
> > faculties as the other has....Mental slavery is the worst of all 
> > slaveries." 
> > 
> > A solid warning against cult-like behavior where everyone 
conforms 
> to 
> > the thinking of the leader.
> > 
> > Her final argument, answering the criticism that the editors do 
not 
> > sufficiently exercise their "editorial right of selection." This 
> she 
> > denies. Rather, she says that the editors do not control and 
> censor The 
> > Theosophist in such a way as to force their opinions "for 
> recognition 
> > upon others" (226). She argues:
> > 
> > "To follow every article from a contributor with a Editor's Note 
> > correcting "his erroneous ideas" would amount to turning our 
> strictly 
> > impartial journal into a sectarian organ. We decline such an 
> office of 
> > 'Sir Oracle'" (226). 
> > 
> > Further, the defines the Theosophical Society, which The 
> Theosophist 
> > represents: "an absolute and uncompromising Republic of 
Conscience, 
> > preoccupation and narrow-mindedness is science and philosophy 
have 
> no 
> > room in it." She denounces this as much much "as dogmatism and 
> bigotry 
> > in theology" (226). 
> > 
> > 
> > Her theme here is one which she often repeats to her critics--
that 
> she 
> > hold truth itself over the various beliefs systems of the world, 
> whether 
> > they be scientific, philosophical or religious. She aptly closes 
> by 
> > quoting Hugo: "In the name of RELIGION we protest against all and 
> every 
> > religion!"
> > 
> > Conclusion. While HPB, in the article, was interested in 
answering 
> her 
> > critics, it is also evident that she was also using her answers 
as 
> an 
> > opportunity to address her larger reading audience concerning the 
> more 
> > important and underlying questions of truth, fact, dogmatism, 
> freedom of 
> > thought, and open mindedness in light of the pitfalls and errors 
we 
> can 
> > fall into in our quest for truth. It is also interesting to note 
> how 
> > carefully HPB avoided putting the spotlight upon herself as an 
> authority 
> > to be followed, and skillfully made it known that her position as 
> Editor 
> > did not include the forcing of her opinions upon others. This is 
> a 
> > position she took through her life, variously as Editor, author 
and 
> > teacher, and is evident in her writing and teaching style when 
she 
> > appeals to reason (as opposed to authority) by arguing her points 
> based 
> > upon what is known. She was careful to write from a reference 
> within our 
> > verifiable experiencs. Even when she wrote about other planes, 
> globes, 
> > etc. she argued from the world's sacred texts, which were, to a 
> greater 
> > or lessor extent, available for verification.
> > 
> > Jerry
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Anand Gholap wrote:
> > 
> > >Here is Blavatsky's wrong statement.
> > >". . . Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at their
> > >right value; and unless a judge compares notes and hears both 
sides
> > >he can hardly come to a correct decision." H.P. Blavatsky, The
> > >Theosophist, Volume II, July, 1881, p. 218; reprinted in H.P.B.'s
> > >Collected Writings, Volume III, p. 225.
> > >
> > >Intuition knows truth directly. Intuition does not require 
> comparison 
> > >with other notes and it does not require hearing of both sides. 
> Above 
> > >quotation of Blavatsky is just one example of how wrong 
statements 
> > >Blavatsky made. 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]