Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00079)

Cass,
> What did masters say about Besant and Leadbeater's teachings? 

Master said keep it up we are watching over you.



> One cannot truly get to the marrow of the Secret Doctrine without 
> reading the flesh and bones of Isis Unveiled. 


Masters called Blavatsky's Isis Unveiled as "shadow of skeleton (of 
Truth) " So Isis is neither body nor soul of Theosophy.

Anand Gholap




> Cass
> 
> Anand Gholap <AnandGholap@A...> wrote:
> 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 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 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]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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]