Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00365)

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

This is not my conclusion, for I've seen only a few of them. And 
those I saw did look that way. That is all I said here.


> By the way, she 
> sometimes had a different opinion from her Tibetan; the latter has 
> abundantly quoted CWL books as a valueable source.

Well, this at least supports the idea of her Tibetan being a separate 
being.


> 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.

There is no belief of personal Devil in her texts. There is a 
description of one of those Lucifers which later ceased to be of this 
kind. But he was neither God's counterpart nor an embodiment of the 
Universal Evil. HR perfectly agreed with HPB on that point. And HPB 
just didn't touch that subject, as far as I know, she only refuted 
one of the Church's fundamental myths.

Regarding Kali Yuga they indeed clash somehow. Maybe they spoke of 
different cycles within cycles. As far as I remember, HR in her 
letters alluded to some then recent (that was in 1930-ies, I guess) 
information circulating in India. If Kali Yuga indeed started ca. 
5000 years ago and should last 432000 years it could hardly end in 
1942 as HR wrote. So maybe her sources were wrong, or it was another 
cycle, or this nice official Hindu chronology with round numbers is 
misleading. Anyway, had the next Yuga really started, we wouldn't 
notice it for, as HPB stated many times, the Nature does not leap and 
everything changes gradually.


> 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.

Please quote this from the original and her translation. I recall 
there was some ambiguity there and we also tried to trace the same in 
Isis Unveiled but found something different.


> For example, the prayer is encouraged there, 
> while HPB was against it.

Again, as in the case with Lucifer, the subjects are different. HPB 
was against an attempt to beg a deity to do our job, while HR spoke 
of a kind of "union" with one's own Higher Self or one's Teacher. 
There is prayer and prayer.


> Also 
> the sentence "there's no way without God" contradicts the well-
known 
> notions of Mahatma Letters.

I don't recall such a sentence, with this literal sense at least.


> Anyway, her control persistently recommended to read this book.

This is not correct. Again, that was a comparison with others.


> 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.

I guess that "us" is not the Tibetan government. And they actually 
met those Mahatmas if we are to believe HR.


> 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.

Why, it depends on interpratation. You have your own peculiar one. 
Actually, tearing quotes out of context wouldn't help to understand 
the text. ;-)


> 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.

Yes, please.


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

Definitely. Well, maybe she became one in her late 40-ies. Actually, 
I don't care, as long as the information coming from her is 
illuminative.


Vladimir