Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00107)

Isis unveiled was not up to par. HPB's later work on the secret
doctrine was much more refined. I think people forget that she is
human, and as such, she is subject to many of the same limitations we
are.

My intution tells me the masters did not approve of some of
Leadbeater's work, to say the least. Just from the fact that he was
clearly not ready to use clairvoyance, and yet he made a statement
concerning extraterrestrial life. If he was truly guided by the
masters the whole time, they would've advised him not to do such a
thing. All he accomplished by doing that was make a spectacle out of
Theosophy.

Theosophists and Occultists need to learn how to present themselves
when making public statements such as those. Otherwise they will
discredit not only their brethren, but the foundation of theosophy if
they are proven wrong.

-Mark H.


On 6/3/05, Anand Gholap <AnandGholap@anandgholap.org> wrote:
> 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]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Mark Hamilton Jr.
waking.adept@gmail.com