Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00230)

Why, do you think they give the old material free to internet?
To keep us busy with old cows.
One needs to find his own lessons in the old and new lessons on his 
own level and in between bring that in practice, the inner human,that 
is what needs to work, otherwise we can forget to have future for all 
and after us, Maybe an illusion, but better than a dellussion.
Christina.TL





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Konstantin Zaitzev" 
<kay_ziatz@y...> wrote:
> >>- 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".