Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00430)

Dear Vladimir,

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

> 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.

Anyway, HPB denies to connect Lucifer with anything evil,
moreover, in "Isis" she encourages us to rid of idea of
revolting angels forever. In SD she explains:

It is not only one of the most hidden secrets of Nature --
that of generation, over whose solution the Embryologists have
vainly put their heads together -- but likewise a divine
function that involves that other religious, or rather
dogmatic, mystery, the "Fall" of the Angels, as it is called.
Satan and his rebellious host would thus prove, when the
meaning of the allegory is explained, to have refused to
create physical man, only to become the direct Saviours and
the Creators of "divine Man." The symbolical teaching is more
than mystical and religious, it is purely scientific, as will
be seen later on. For, instead of remaining a mere blind,
functioning medium, impelled and guided by fathomless LAW, the
"rebellious" Angel claimed and enforced his right of
independent judgment and will, his right of free-agency and
responsibility, since man and angel are alike under Karmic Law.

(THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol. 1, Page 193-194)

So there's nothing bad and evil in the "fall".
Moreover, it no way conforms to an idea of Lucifer as a king of
this material world. If these "fallen" intelligences refused to
create physical man, they seemed to keep aloof of any material
existence (as HPB explains in "Transactions"), and not cling to
it and chain others to it as mythical Devil does. H.Roerich
also often uses a term Satan, and quotes a religious slogan
that the best contrivance of Satan is disbelief in him.

> letters alluded to some then recent (that was in 1930-ies, I
> guess) information circulating in India.

HPB also mentiones that this information circulated in India in
19th century and attributes it to gross ignorance of people and
to contrivances of priesthood in order to make people donate
more cows, etc.

> Please quote this from the original and her translation.

SD says:

"On these data, the later Jewish High Priests constructed the
allegory of Solomon's Temple -- a building which never had a
real existence, any more than had King Solomon himself, who is
simply, and as much a solar myth as is the still later Hiram
Abif, of the Masons, as Ragon has well demonstrated."
(Vol. I, p. 314 of original edition)

The later edition prepared by Annie Besant says the same thing,
though in slightly edited form, which no way changes the thesis:

"On these data, the later Jewish High Priests constructed the
allegory of Solomon's Temple -- a building which never had a
real existence, any more than had King Solomon himself, who is
as much a solar myth as is the still later Hiram Abif of the
Masons, as Ragon has well demonstrated."

H.Roerich translated the passage correctly except the last words:
"as Ragon TRIED TO DEMONSTRATE".

In her letters she confirms that the Temple surely existed,
and explains that SD says otherwise because 3rd volume isn't
authentic. But it was in 1st vol, not in the 3rd. Because of
her strong dislike of 3rd volume, she has omitted the following
HPB words about 3rd volume from the preface:

"Should the present volumes meet with a favourable reception,
no effort will be spared to carry out the scheme of the work
in its entirety. The third volume is entirely ready; the fourth
almost so."


> 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.

See "The call":
"We'll send a prayer to the Creator of existense"
(record of July 13th, 1921)
Another good example of prayer to Lord in quite religious style
is under Aug. 5th, 1921.

>> Also the sentence "there's no way without God"
> I don't recall such a sentence, with this literal sense at least.

See "Fireworld", 628 [lit. "Bez Boga net puti"]
Though it's somewhat out of context; but it is quoted in the
Letters by HR herself exactly this way.
In other letters (usually published as an attachment to most
russian printings of Mahatma Letters), she maintains that ML
deny only personal God, not impersonal, while ML clearly deny
the both.


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

Even if we are to believe HR, it was after long and dangerous
journey. It seems that there were no signs of help of
Mahatmas along the way.

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

You may look at the originals, it is the letter of 26 july 1921.
Also noteworthy is the letter of 6 june 1921. After a long
contact they came to believe that their guide (that very word
in English is used in letters) called himself Allal Ming is the
Master M., whom they sought for long and obviously couldn't
find till then.