Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00434)

Monday, June 20, 2005, 12:22:12 PM, Konstantin wrote:

> 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.

Again, when those two ladies spoke about the same Lucifer, they
perfectly agreed. You can find in H.Roerich's letters lengthy
explanations of fallacies in church dogmas about this name. BUT, she
ALSO wrote about one of those Big Guys who came on this planet to
shape it up, to build. But later on he tended to build here a prison
and so was finally banished.

This may or may not be true but it does not clash with the meaning of
the word "Lucifer" as HPB used it. Hence no contradictions here. Of
course, you can always interpret the whole thing otherwise and find
any meaning in any words, but H.Roerich was quite clear on this
subject.


> H.Roerich also often uses a term Satan, and quotes a religious
> slogan that the best contrivance of Satan is disbelief in him.

Okay, you can blame her for misusing this term.


>> 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.

Maybe that's the case. I can only surmise that it was about
2520*2=5040 years passed since 3102 BC which yields 1939. These are
two "weeks" -- active and passive -- giving one complete cycle, one
"week" being 7*360=2520 "mortal years". If this is a kind of "little"
Kali Yuga (maybe that of a sub-race), then the entire "little"
Maha-Yuga would be 50400 years, whatever all that may mean... :)


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

Yes, now I see it. Well, most probably this is simply an error of the
translator. There's no point in changing the words deliberately for
the entire context clearly shows that the author (HPB) stated here the
Temple is an allegory.


> In her letters she confirms that the Temple surely existed,
> and explains that SD says otherwise because 3rd volume isn't
> authentic.

As far as I remember, she spoke here about the 3rd vol. because a
person she wrote to asked about what she read in that particular
volume. And it is indeed not authentic because the author didn't have
a chance to edit it personally, although, as Daniel showed us
recently, HPB apparently wrote most of it herself.


> 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.

This is incorrect if by "impersonal God" we mean the entire Universe
and its Law. It's just a matter of wording. Thus "no path without
God", i.e. without this inner awareness of ultimate unity. You can
find in her letters plenty of caustic words about personal God of
religions. And about prayer -- I can only repeat what I already said
about different processes called by the same name.


> 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.

It SEEMS. They all would die if it were so. But of course we cannot
know for sure unless we have first-hand knowledge.


Vladimir