Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00361)

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

Dear Vladimir,
Sorry for delay, but it required a long argumented answer, and I had 
no time till today to answer.

> I can see, it really IS rubbish because it contradicts evidence 
> (like CWL's "visions" about life on Mars);

It is not so obvious. When I have first read it several years ago, the 
statement which surprized me most was that there were floods on Mars. 
It was more easy for me to believe that there are some people which 
are not numerous and are hiding somewhere, than there could be plenty 
of water on the such a dry planet, as science of that day has taught 
us. It seemed to me quite impossible to believe. But the recent 
recearches by two American automatic stations have proved that there 
were floods on Mars, and the planet contains much more water than we 
expected before. Also CWL wrote that polar caps of Mars are of ice, 
not of carbon dioxide, as we prevoiusly thought, and now there are 
evidences in support of it.
Another interesting point is that most missions to Venus, mostly by 
Soviet automatic stations, were quite successful in spite of agressive 
environment of the planet, while very many stations sent to Mars 
mysteriously crashed, though the conditions there are much more 
favourable for the technical devices, probably even more favourable 
than that of Earth.
We can also remember the accusation of ufologists against NASA that it 
coloured photographs in order that they looked more redish: 
http://ufologie.net/htm/marscol.htm
It is quite probable, for from known scientific data about martian 
atmosphere, the sky there shouldn't be of red color as these photos 
depict it. Another proof is the station itself in the photo which 
obviously shouldn't look red.
See also http://xenotechresearch.com/marscol3.htm

> sheer specialism in AAB's and CWL's ranking Masters along "rays 

There's no "sheer" specialism, for as they wrote, the ray can be 
changed in some cases, and pupils are often passed from one master to 
another. Anyway, the teachings about the rays, Masters and previous 
incarnations are not so important, and aren't the main points.

> up the world and labeling its pieces instead of perceiving it as 
> an integrated whole is a characteristic feature of these people.

You are making even more grave error that these people, for you are 
judging about the whole by small bunch of people. I really wonder 
where you have found them. Moreover, you may find the HPB followers 
who seem to be unable for independent thinking and talk only by 
quotations picked from here or there, but it dosn't mean at all that 
HPB didn't promote an independent thinking.

> As far as I remember, his criticism was called forth not by 
> her incorrectness but by difficulties in comprehending her 7-fold 
set 

Not only.

"These seven principles, as generally enumerated, do not correspond to 
any natural lines of cleavage, so to speak, in the constitution of 
man. Taking the seven principles in the order in which they are 
generally given, the physical body is separated from the so-called 
life-principle; the latter from what is called linga sarira (very 
often confounded with sukshma sarira). Thus the physical body is 
divided into three principles. Now here we may make any number of 
divisions…
But still the physical body does not constitute a separate entity 
apart from the life principle, nor the life principle apart from the 
physical body, and so with the linga sarira. Again, in the so-called 
"astral body," the fourth principle when separated from the fifth soon 
disintegrates, and the so-called fourth principle is almost lifeless 
unless combined with the fifth. This system of division does not give 
us any distinct principles which have something like independent 
existence" (Philosophy of Bhagavad Gita, Lecture I)

> So what is new here apart from yet another label?
 
There are at least some people who don't think so. See an article by 
G. Farthing about etheric double on www.theosophy.ca

> Why? And their multitude is no proof for their correctness.
 
Of course no. I am only questioning the hypothesis of "fancy", for 
there were no motives for fraud, and no need to fancy, especially for 
people who have just studied HPB works thoroughly, and firmly believed 
that her teaching is a true one. It's true, people often tend to 
delude themselves, but as a rule their fancies serve to corroborate 
the doctrine they believe, not to undermine it. For instance, many 
christians had visions in which they have seen everything exactly as 
the Church teaches.

>> And we know for sure that H.Roerich was definitely hostile to 
> And so was AAB.

Was she really hostile to any theosophists? As far I know, she never 
resigned from TS. She criticized some people, among them Wadia and 
Leadbeater, but I think that she was never hostile to them, and never 
called anyone of them agents of the black lodge. By the way, she 
sometimes had a different opinion from her Tibetan; the latter has 
abundantly quoted CWL books as a valueable source.

> I've read a lot of books written by H.Roerich and found very
> little difficulty to reconcile them with Theosophy, as I know it 
from HPB's writings

It's very interesting to know how could you reconcile with theosophy 
her belief in personal Devil and in the soon end of the kali yuga. HPB 
not only denies these beliefs but even scoffs on them, and I am 
completely agree with her. Also HPB wrote that the temple of Solomon 
never existed while H. Roerich (as C.W. Leadbeater) wrote the 
contrary, and even has translated incorrectly the corresponding place 
in the SD.
Well, it's all mostly from Letters, but there are some passages in 
Agni Yoga books too. For example, the prayer is encouraged there, 
while HPB was against it. And while Bailey's "invocations" could be 
somehow reconciled with the HPB's "will prayer", it seems quite 
impossible for the prayers to the Christ mentioned in Agni Yoga. Also 
the sentence "there's no way without God" contradicts the well-known 
notions of Mahatma Letters.

 
> That's funny indeed. But it was not an approval, it was a kind 
of
> pointing at the least evil out of many. Apparently his other books
 
Anyway, her control persistently recommended to read this book.
But it could be easily explained by supposition that different 
controls vivified the communicating shell, as is oftenly the case in 
spiritualistic communications, and these controls could have different 
views. And we know now that at least first Agni Yoga books were 
received through the moving table. I suspected it even before I have 
read letters and diaries, for it's style reminded me much that of the 
spiritualistic literature.

> in Himalayas when they travelled over Tibet a few years later. 

Yet their journey proved utterly unsuccessful. You may compare it with 
that of Blavatsky to India, where she always received help and support 
in spite of hostility of the English occupants. In Roerich case, there 
was enough of governmental hostility and probably nothing to 
counterbalance it. I remember the statement, probably from Mahatma 
letters, that everyone whom we want to see shall by met by us on very 
borders of Tibet, while others may wander there for years and find but 
stones and ice. It seems to me that it was just the case.
As for her alleged meeting with the Master in March 1920 there are 
evidences against. The diary of later date speaks about their 
spiritual guide: "We so searched for Master and didn't know that he 
was near all that time". This statement would have no any sense, if 
she really met the Master in physical body for some time before.

> Fine, but I asked for something not to be found in  
> earlier theosophical works.
 
I haven't seen it in earlier works, especially why it is so. Both 
works of CWL & AAB explain how emotions and thought patterns work, 
what is that which is now called "channeling" and how illusions and 
false visions are created, which are general principles of thought 
action, how to develop intuition and so on, it is the main purport of 
their teachings and not the information about the Masters and past 
incarnations, which is not so important at all. In most cases it 
doesn't contradict the earlier teachings, which sometimes give it too, 
but in general outline only. This useful information made me tolerate 
even their "God", who is after all our local logos, and not the 
supercosmic God, as Annie Besant herself admitted.

> so far is given in "The Pseudo-Occultism of Mrs. A. Bailey" By 
> Alice Leighton Cleather and Basil Crump. BTW, have you seen a 
refutation 

There is some kind of refutation, though incomplete; but it's rather a 
letter than a good article. I'll try to find it and repost it later.
 
>.."The physical plane is as much a form of divine expression as any 
of the higher planes... that 
it may be advisable at certain stages for a man to perfect control 
along any particular line through a temporary abstention is not to be 
denied, but that . . . will be succeeded by stages when - the control 
having been gained - the man demonstrates perfectly through the medium 
of the physical body, the attributes of divinity, and every center 
will be normally and wisely used, and thus race purposes furthered."

Yet there is some sense in her thoughts and here she argues with the 
adherents of the celibate life.
There are some explanation, if I remember correctly, in "Some thoughts 
on Gita", the anonymous work of 1893. The main points are that failure 
in previous planetary chain (on which the influence of Kali Yuga now 
overlayed) made celibacy a rule for a spiritual life; it's probably 
just a means to counterbalance consequences of earlier misuse of 
sexual power.

 
> From "The qualifications expected in a Chela" (Theosophist, Vol.. 

Then not AAB only, but H. Roerich surely wasn't a chela.

But all beforesaid wasn't my initial point. My point can be summarized 
by a quotation, whose author you may don't like, but I quote him in 
convenience sake only, for the point is expressed there in good 
English what I am unable myself to do.

"We both hold strenuously to the great central idea of man as an 
immortal and ever-progressive being; we both know that as is his life 
now, so shall it be after he has cast aside this body, which is his 
only that he may learn through it; we both hold the Fatherhood of God 
and the brotherhood of man as fundamental tenets; and we both know 
that the gains and rewards of this world are but as dross compared 
with the glorious certainties of the higher life beyond the grave. Let 
us stand side by side on this common platform, and let us postpone the 
consideration of our points of difference until we have converted the 
rest of the world to the belief in these points upon which we agree. 
Surely that is wise policy, for these are the points of importance; 
and if the life is lived in accordance with these all the rest will 
follow."

It was originally addresed to spiritualists, but I would address this 
to all theosophists (maybe with exception of point of "god" but with 
addition of reincarnation)