Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00218)

>>- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "sova7777" wrote:

> along with giving (mostly by quoting or paraphrasing) some
> valuable stuff which is perfectly in line with the doctrine
> given through HPB, mixes it with tons of rubbish and
> therefore it's hardly useful or even dangerous to some
> people to dive into this mixture.

If anything is not "in line with the doctrine given through
HPB", it doesn't mean at all that it's rubbish. For example,
later writers (beginning from CWL) give somewhat different
set of human principles. Subba Row aptly criticized HPB's
set of principles, stating that it doesn't follow any
natural division lines, and HPB herself was slightly changing
this set. The newer set which includes etheric body, is now
adopted universally even outside of Theosophical Society,
and the existence of the etheric body, so fiercely denied by
the fundamentalists, has some scientific corroborations.

The teaching about life on the astral plane also makes some
sense. According to the "classical" theosophy, we drop astral
shells and proceed right to devachan, while real man cannot
communicate from the astral plane, but the empty shells only.
It's strange why we have so different laws for different
planes, and why we don't drop empty mental shell at once.

The newer theory seems to me somewhat better, for it sets
the same course for different planes. First, while we still
haven't rid of desires and earthly associations, we live in
the astral body and even can communicate; there we are not
less ourselves than here on earth; of course, we live there
not as higher selves, but as personalities, as later in
devachan, where we dwell until we rid of mental associations.
Yet we are still connected with our higher selves as we were
on earth. Obviously, it's logical for any average man to
live for several years on the astral plane, and on the
contrary, it would be inexplicable why should he dissociate
from his desire principle so fast. The active kamarupa
shells are created in cases of very debased people only, who
couldn't rescue their lower mind from desires; the lower mind
is torn from the higher.

It's interesting enough that up to 1895 CWL/AAB doctrine in
its main features was already formed, and it seems impossible
for a beginner to invent it and persuade many theosophists
in 4 years only, moreover, to create it so that it wouldn't
need any serious later improvements and would be accepted by
more and more esotricists in the modern world.

> And all those suspicious cases of pedophilia, although
> apparently not very criminal, and other weaknesses simply
> hint at a very probable cause of producing that rubbish by
> the aforementioned writer.

The same can be said about Blavatsky, changing "pedophilia"
to the boxes with sliding walls for producing "miracles" and
other things like that. We also can remember her bad temper,
smoking, etc. It is obviously a practice of double standards
which is such vogue now, to deny all accusations against HPB
as a slander campaign and believe all accusations against CWL.

Noteworthy that K.H. warned CWL: "They (clergy) will stop
before nothing to ruin the reputation of the Founders. Are
you willing to atone their sins? Then go to Adyar..." And he
gone. So it is only logical that CWL's reputation was also
ruined. Yet the phrase implies some kind of vicarious
atonement, against which doctrine all theosophical writers
unamimously protested.

> It only shows that AAB spoke of them as different persons.

I mean that she had no reasonable need to invent other persons,
for she had enough living ones. Yet there's no any proofs to
H. Roerich's statement, so why should we believe her more
than AAB. And we know for sure that H.Roerich was definitely
hostile to the most prominent theosophists of her time. In
addition to well-known examples of AAB & CWL, she (or her
spirit-guides) spoke badly about Besant, Olcott, Jinarajadasa,
Steiner and Kamenskaya. I think that we would find in the
letters and diaries even more names. Also I remind you that she
(to be more correct, her "control") approved only one book
by CWL, "The Inner life", the most controversial of all, for
he speaks there about the life on Mars!


> Can anyone provide a reference to something in AAB's
> books that led to a practical advancement of readers

How can we measure another's practical advancement?
In "Letters on occult meditation" there are some good
advises how to avoid some common errors in meditation,
which in extreme cases may cause brain damage. While
I don't agree with some beliefs of AAB followers, I
have to admit that of all theosophical schools of thought
know to me they work most seriously on improvement of their
character, and as a rule are sane and well-balanced people.
In the same time the philosophy is often their weak point.

As for contradictions, there are different opinions.
I know one old lady in our theosophical group who for
several years studied HPB only. She has re-read "Key to
Theosophy" for three or even four times. She tried to read
CWL but he has not attracted her much. At the and of one
book she had stumbled upon the advertisement of AAB books.
Now she studies only them and says that all the previous,
including CWL, is just a "kindergarten".