Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00020)

Anand, friends,

Anand, you write:

> What you are suggesting is whole world should change and all people 
> in it should make themselves suitable for reading Blavatsky's 
> writing.
What I wrote was that most Americans lack the skills needed to read with 
much understanding anything written above a fifteen year old level. 
They are unable to read with much understanding anything but the 
simplest writing. What I would suggest is that people would be 
generally better off if they were to work on improving their reading and 
thinking skills. 
> This expectation is not right.
I have no such expectation that people should learn to read and think at 
a higher level. My experience has been that most young people who go to 
the universities resist learning to read, write or think. They tell me 
that they are there to get their diploma and get a job that pays a lot 
of money. More often, I find people who learn for the love of learning 
among Theosophists. But there are relatively few theosophists. 
> Writer must write in a way 
> that people would understand what he writes and lifts them from their 
> level.
I don't agree, and have to side with Blavatsky on this one when she 
writes: "To the mentally lazy or obtuse, Theosophy must remain a riddle; 
for in the world mental as in the world spiritual each man must progress 
by his own efforts. The writer cannot do the reader's thinking for him, 
nor would the latter be any the better off if such vicarious thought 
were possible." (Key to Theosophy, preface). People have to raise 
themselves from their own levels. A writer cannot do that for them. 
Blavatsky's writings have a way of challenging people to do this--if 
they are motivated to do so.

> Blavatsky failed to write in such manner and she admitted it. 
I agree, she did not write in such a manner. But how is this a 
failure? Please quote where she made such a statement.

> Another thing is Master also said that " people want lucid 
> explanation which appears to her (HPB) superfluous"
That sounds like something KH would have written. HPB, in her earlier 
writings indeed left much unexplained. That was remidied with the 
Secret Doctrine. Source of this quote please.

> Ordinary people 
> don't understand her writing.
True. "Ordinary people" no longer have the reading skills, and are too 
lazy, or are not otherwise motivated to try to read at that level.

> Scholars consider it bad way of 
> presentation. So definitely fault is in Blavatsky's writing.
Where did you get this idea? I read scholarly works all the 
time--contemporary and older works. Most of them are more difficult to 
read than Blavatsky. "Ordinary people," as you put it, don't understand 
scholarly writing either.

> You said you could appreciate Leadbeater's writing because you had 
> already seen many things about what he wrote. What things did you see?
I did not write "appreciate." I wrote that he was particularly "easy" 
for me to read because I had already seen many of the things he wrote 
about. 
> I have seen many people who studied Blavatsky's writing lost common 
> sense, became dogmatic and fundamentalist, intolerant towards others 
> and even were filled with intense hatred. This is greatest failure of 
> any writer on spiritual subject.
I have seen many people who studied Besant and Leadbeater's writings who 
lost common sense and became dogmatic and fundamentalist, intolerant 
towards others and even were filled with intense hatred. I suggest that 
the fault is with those people, not the writers.

> I saw many students of Besant and Leadbeater who had very fine, 
> sensitive emotional nature and many were working unselfishly for 
> helping others. This is the change in heart that writing on occultism 
> must produce and AB, CWL succeeded in that very well. 
I have seen Blavatsky students who had a very fine, sensitive emotuional 
nature, and many were working unselfishly for helping others. I suggest 
that the change in heart is the accomplishment of the people, not the 
writer's. 
> It is true that Blavatsky mostly commented writings on other 
> philosophers, religions etc. But most people are not interested in 
> studying old religions and writings of old philosophers, even less on 
> commentaries on those. So for most people value of her writing is neg 
> legible. 
How very sad for them.

> Leadbeater explains about things which large number of people want to 
> know in language they understand. Marvellous thing is he explains 
> most metaphysical concepts in language ordinary reader understands.
Indeed he does. However, without any knowledge of "old Religions" and 
"old philosophers" they are in no position to evaluate what CWL writes. 
Even the "intuition" you have written of in previous posts cannot 
properly function in a vacuum of ignorance. True spiritual intuition, 
like everything else, must be developed, and also checked by knowledge. 
We must climb the ladder of spiritual unfoldment one rung at a time and 
skip none. 
Best wishes,
Jerry






Anand Gholap wrote:

> Jerry,
> What you are suggesting is whole world should change and all people 
> in it should make themselves suitable for reading Blavatsky's 
> writing. This expectation is not right. Writer must write in a way 
> that people would understand what he writes and lifts them from their 
> level. Blavatsky failed to write in such manner and she admitted it. 
> Another thing is Master also said that " people want lucid 
> explanation which appears to her (HPB) superfluous" Ordinary people 
> don't understand her writing. Scholars consider it bad way of 
> presentation. So definitely fault is in Blavatsky's writing.
>
> You said you could appreciate Leadbeater's writing because you had 
> already seen many things about what he wrote. What things did you see?
>
> I have seen many people who studied Blavatsky's writing lost common 
> sense, became dogmatic and fundamentalist, intolerant towards others 
> and even were filled with intense hatred. This is greatest failure of 
> any writer on spiritual subject.
> I saw many students of Besant and Leadbeater who had very fine, 
> sensitive emotional nature and many were working unselfishly for 
> helping others. This is the change in heart that writing on occultism 
> must produce and AB, CWL succeeded in that very well. 
> It is true that Blavatsky mostly commented writings on other 
> philosophers, religions etc. But most people are not interested in 
> studying old religions and writings of old philosophers, even less on 
> commentaries on those. So for most people value of her writing is neg 
> legible. 
> Leadbeater explains about things which large number of people want to 
> know in language they understand. Marvellous thing is he explains 
> most metaphysical concepts in language ordinary reader understands.
>
> Anand Gholap
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links