Theos-Talk Archives (July 2005 Message tt00205)

July 29 2005

This is a curious letter

I see it was written in 1998.

HPB died in 1891 - I presume she might respond if alive in the best way to
what is said there.

I suppose that the writer (copyright holder ?) Alexis Dolgourikii may be
some near descendent of the princely Dolgourikii family of Russia.

HPB was related to that family through her mother and grandparents. 

I fail to be impressed by the distinction being made by this author between
"THEOSOPHY" and "theosophy". That is his usage of the word. The idea and
teachings and philosophy behind the mere word is as comprehensive as any
student will make of it.

He writes in part:

""THEOSOPHY" on the other hand, is no more than the history of the various
"Theosophical Societies" which began, as a history, not with the foundation
of the original Theosophical Society in 1875, but in actuality 1878 when
Blavatsky and Olcott removed themselves to India and completely abandoned
the original programme of the Society in favor of the furthering of Indian
Nationalism and the dissolution of the "English Raj". The separation widened
between original goals and eventual reality when Blavatsky was sent away
from India, and in revenge wrote the Secret Doctrine and founded the
"Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society". And then on May 8th she
died, and unfortunately, the Theosophical Society did NOT die with her." 

I see the designations reversed as THEOSOPHY is "the basic teachings," and
the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY is the popular instrument devised since 1875 to
present them, and to try to keep to the ORIGINAL PROGRAMME. If it has
deviated and "failed," then the members have to work to readjust it.

One thing is certain:

THEOSOPHY has little or nothing to do with the history of the THEOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY.  

THEOSOPHY belongs to the ages.   

The THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY is what its members have made of it, and are
presently making of it. It has been basically stated from the beginning that
THEOSOPHY is NOT a "religion." 

THEOSOPHY is also a way of life for those who aspire to achieve
"Perfection." (see below)

"We should aim at creating free men and women, free intellectually, free
morally, unprejudiced in all respects, and above all things, unselfish. And
we believe that much if not all of this could be obtained by proper and
truly theosophical education."
Key 271

I make a clear distinction. Consider this as a basis for investigative
study:

>From the SECRET DOCTRINE : Vol 2

"But the true esoteric meaning is that most of them [the "Flames" the
Agnishwatta Pitris] were destined to incarnate as the Egos [Buddhi-Manas]
of the forthcoming crop of Mankind. The human Ego [Higher Manas] is neither
Atman nor Buddhi, but the higher Manas: the intellectual fruition and the
efflorescence of the intellectual self-conscious Egotism — in the higher
spiritual sense. The ancient works refer to it as Karana Sarira on the plane
of Sutratma, which is the golden thread on which, like beads, the various
personalities of this higher Ego are strung. 

If the reader were told, as in the semi-esoteric allegories, that these
Beings were returning Nirvanees, from preceding Maha-Manvantaras — ages of
incalculable duration which have rolled away in the Eternity, a still more
incalculable time ago — he would hardly understand the text correctly; while
some Vedantins might say: "This is not so; the Nirvanee can never return";
which is true during the Manvantara he belongs to, and erroneous where
Eternity is concerned. For it is said in the Sacred Slokas: 

"The thread of radiance which is imperishable and dissolves only in Nirvana,
re-emerges from it in its integrity on the day when the Great Law calls all
things back into action. . . ." S D II 79-80


This is what THEOSOPHY has to offer as a basic concept of universal progress
to the Goal: PERFECTION.  


Anyone can see that the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY has to serve as a kind of
doorway, or a way of passage to this self-devised and self conduced process.
It has ne creed and no beliefs. On the contrary, it sets every member on
their own feet and asks them to independently check, examine, test and apply
what is useful in the original teachings of THEOSOPHY. It encourages a
brotherhood of free men and women. (as quoted above from the Key). 

Every member has the same opportunity. But each has to work for, and choose
it. 

"Esoteric philosophy, however, teaches that one third* of the Dhyanis —
i.e., the three classes of the Arupa Pitris, endowed with intelligence,
...was simply doomed by the law of Karma and evolution to be reborn (or
incarnated) on Earth.† Some of these were Nirmanakayas from other
Manvantaras. Hence we see them, in all the Puranas, reappearing on this
globe, in the third Manvantara, as Kings, Rishis and heroes (read Third
Root-Race). 

This tenet, being too philosophical and metaphysical to be grasped by the
multitudes, was, as already stated, disfigured by the priesthood for the
purpose of preserving a hold over them through superstitious fear. 

The supposed "rebels," then, were simply those who, compelled by Karmic law
to drink the cup of gall to its last bitter drop, had to incarnate anew, and
thus make responsible thinking entities of the astral statues projected by
their inferior brethren. Some are said to have refused, because they had not
in them the requisite materials — i.e., an astral body — since they were
arupa. 

The refusal of others had reference to their having been Adepts and Yogis of
long past preceding Manvantaras; another mystery. But, later on, as
Nirmanakayas, they sacrificed themselves for the good and salvation of the
Monads which were waiting for their turn, and which otherwise would have had
to linger for countless ages in irresponsible, animal-like, though in
appearance human, forms. It may be a parable and an allegory within an
allegory. Its solution is left to the intuition of the student, if he only
reads that which follows with his spiritual eye. 

As to their fashioners or "Ancestors" — those Angels who, in the exoteric
legends, obeyed the law — they must be identical with the Barhishad Pitris,
or the Pitar-Devata, i.e., those possessed of the physical creative fire. 

They could only create, or rather clothe, the human Monads with their own
astral Selves, but they could not make man in their image and likeness. "Man
must not be like one of us," say the creative gods, entrusted with the
fabrication of the lower animal but higher; (see Gen. and Plato's Timaeus).
Their creating the semblance of men out of their own divine Essence means,
esoterically, that it is they who became the first Race, and thus shared its
destiny and further evolution. 

They would not, simply because they could not, give to man that sacred spark
which burns and expands into the flower of human reason and
self-consciousness, for they had it not to give. This was left to that class
of Devas who became symbolised in Greece under the name of Prometheus, to
those who had nought to do with the physical body, yet everything with the
purely spiritual man. ....


STRUGGLE TO REACH PERFECTION

Each class of Creators endows man with what it has to give: the one builds
his external form; the other gives him its essence, which later on becomes
the Human Higher Self owing to the personal exertion of the individual; but
they could not make men as they were themselves — perfect, because sinless;
sinless, because having only the first, pale shadowy outlines of attributes,
and these all perfect — from the human standpoint — white, pure and cold as
the virgin snow. 

Where there is no struggle, there is no merit. Humanity, "of the Earth
earthy," was not destined to be created by the angels of the first divine
Breath: therefore they are said to have refused to do so, and man had to be
formed by more material creators,* who, in their turn, could give only what
they had in their own natures, and no more. Subservient to eternal law, the
pure gods could only project out of themselves shadowy men, a little less
ethereal and spiritual, less divine and perfect than themselves — shadows
still. 

The first humanity, therefore, was a pale copy of its progenitors; too
material, even in its ethereality, to be a hierarchy of gods; too spiritual
and pure to be MEN, endowed as it is with every negative (Nirguna)
perfection. 

Perfection, to be fully such, must be born out of imperfection, the
incorruptible must grow out of the corruptible, having the latter as its
vehicle and basis and contrast. 

Absolute light is absolute darkness, and vice versa. In fact, there is
neither light nor darkness in the realms of truth. Good and Evil are twins,
the progeny of Space and Time, under the sway of Maya. Separate them, by
cutting off one from the other, and they will both die. Neither exists per
se, since each has to be generated and created out of the other, in order to
come into being; both must be known and appreciated before becoming objects
of perception, hence, in mortal mind, they must be divided. 

Nevertheless, as the illusionary distinction exists, it requires a lower
order of creative angels to "create" inhabited globes — especially ours — or
to deal with matter on this earthly plane. "	S D II 93-96

Best wishes,

Dallas

=========================================
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Cass Silva
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:43 PM
To: 
Subject: RE: Treading the path THEOSOPHICAL STUDY AND WORK

 
Big "T" and little "t" 

COPYRIGHT: 1998 Alexis Dolgorukii 

---------------------------------

"THEOSOPHY" vis a vis "theosophy"; an essay. 

"THEOSOPHY" and "theosophy" would seem to be the same thing, after all the
word is exactly the same except for capitalization and therefore emphasis.
But, they are anything but the same, they are not even dichotomous, for
rather than being mutually contradictory the two versions of one word have
evolved to the point whereat they have no relationship to one another at
all. 

When it is spelled in lower case letters, "theosophy" is both an attitude
towards philosophy and a process, or methodology to be utilized in the
course of studying metaphysics. When it is capitalized, and it doesn't
matter whether the first letter is capitalized or the whole word, it is a
religion, "THEOSOPHY", with all the trappings and all the failures of
religion, hierarchy, doctrine and dogmatism. It also claims authority and
seeks power, which is common to all religions and absolutely antithetic to
philosophy. 

I strongly support and strongly approve of "theosophy". I very strongly
disapprove of "THEOSOPHY", as in fact I equally disapprove of all religions
and cults. Let us see why this is so. 

Let us start with history. There is no question that "theosophy" has a long,
indeed very long, and distinguished history, for there is also no question
that its lineage traces directly back through Ammoninus Saccus to Plato, and
from Plato to Thales of Miletus, who has been called "The Father of Greek
Philosophy". Now that is an illustrious intellectual pedigree of some 2500
years duration. 

"THEOSOPHY" on the other hand, is no more than the history of the various
"Theosophical Societies" which began, as a history, not with the foundation
of the original Theosophical Society in 1875, but in actuality 1878 when
Blavatsky and Olcott removed themselves to India and completely abandoned
the original programme of the Society in favor of the furthering of Indian
Nationalism and the dissolution of the "English Raj". The separation widened
between original goals and eventual reality when Blavatsky was sent away
from India, and in revenge wrote the Secret Doctrine and founded the
"Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society". And then on May 8th she
died, and unfortunately, the Theosophical Society did NOT die with her. 

On May 8th 1891 Countess Yelena Blavatskaya died, and the movement she
started began to die. On February 17th, 1907 her associate Colonel Henry
Steele Olcott died, and Mrs. Annie Besant succeeded in her manipulative
drive to become the supreme leader of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY (ADYAR). On
that day the theosophical movement went into eclipse and slowly but
irretrievably died. The various Theosophical Societies have been vampires
battening off it's corpse. 

The Theosophical Society became the center for the dispersion and promotion
of the child molester Charles Webster Leadbeater's pathological delusions,
and the vehicle for Annie Besant's personal ambitions. The Theosophical
Society (Adyar) accompanied by it's schismatic namesakes, the United Lodge
of Theosophists, and the Point Loma Theosophical Society (now the
Theosophical Society, Pasadena), commenced a process wherein the speculative
philosophy presented by Mme. Blavatskaya were permutated into "revealed
truth" and from that fateful step the process of turning into a "Revealed
Religion" commenced it's long slow progression. But the theosophical
movement which she had hoped to found began to "die on the vine", as it
were. 

There have been those in the intervening years who have tried desperately to
get the movement on a track "back to Blavatsky" but it has never really
seemed to work. One of the reasons is that most of these people were totally
dedicated to the Blavatsky represented by the "Secret Doctrine" rather than
the Blavatsky represented by Isis Unveiled". The question one should now ask
is this: "What's the difference?" 

The answer to that question is that anything which was published after
Yelena Blavatskaya's death cannot be assumed to have issued from her mind
and pen. Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater were the theosophical
equivalents of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, they were forgers and thieves of
history! As far as Blavatskaya's writings are concerned, "Isis Unveiled" (in
the 1877 facsimile edition published by the Theosophy Company ULT) is her
work, and it is just possible that most of the Secret Doctrine, but ONLY in
the 1888 edition which is published in a facsimile of the original by the
Theosophy Company ULT ). The so-called Third Volume of the Secret Doctrine
must be assumed to be entirely invalid and a totally revisionist thing. BUT,
the motivations behind her writing of the Secret Doctrine are highly
questionable. It is my own impression that they were written as a "false
trail" or "blind" to undo the damage she had done by pre-emptoraly and
precipitously revealing the existence of
the "Association of Adepts" entirely contrary to the expressed desires of a
majority of that group. Her actions, well-meaning as they may have been did
an enormous amount of damage to the Association and Blavatskaya was, by this
point in time, absolutely willing to do anything necessary to undo the
damage. Even if it meant writing reams of egregious nonsense. 

By the way the writer is NOT a member of the ULT, but is (until his dues run
out) a Fellow of The Theosophical Society in America, and is the fourth
Cousin of Yelena Blavatskaya. 

Now, I am quite certain that most of Mme. Blavatskaya's magazine articles
written and published either in her homeland or in her magazine "Lucifer"
are not tampered with (unless in a reissued, and therefor probably revised
form). But we may be sure that anything which was purported to be by Mme.
Blavatskaya which was issued by the Theosophical society (Adyar), went
through the hands of people like Charles Leadbeater and George Arundale and
James Wedgewood, by whom they were "revised and improved". 

But there's another question too. And that question is far more important
than the many questions concerning Besant, Leadbeater and company, and they
are so because they concern Yelena Blavatskaya herself. The Yelena
Blavatskaya that founded the theosophical movement in New York City in 1875
was a very different person than the H.P.B. who left New York for India in
1878 almost immediately after becoming an American Citizen. 

Why was she "different" or rather how did that "difference" manifest itself?


To answer that question we must look at Yelena as she was prior to 1878.
Countess or not, highborn aristocrat or not, Yelena Blavatskaya had been a
rebellious and revolutionary iconoclast all of her life. She was for most of
her life (prior to 1875) an really "up-front" lesbian, but more important
than that she was an anti-Christian, pro-Democratic revolutionary. "Isis
Unveiled" is an entirely and openly anti-Christian tract! 

She was closely associated with revolutionary movements that were largely
directed against the British Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. She
left Russia and somehow made it into Tibet by way of it's Northern Border
which was within a Russian sphere of influence, what happened there, and
where she went from there we'll never really know because events in her life
known to the public are entirely sporadic. But she made her way to Paris,
and the to Egypt, mostly living and dressing as a male, she survived several
murder attempts (damages from these attempts shortened her life) and in
Egypt she was involved with various Western Occult societies and then went
to Italy where she was closely associated with Garibaldi, Mazzini, and
Cavour. She fought in the Battle of Mentana as a junior officer of Dragoons
(male), then spent more time in Paris. 

Then in the years just before 1875 she turned up in America, playing no
small role in the spiritualist movement, which really fit in to her
religious iconoclasm. Then she founded the T.S. This is the Blavatsky I love
and admire. The in the three years between 1875 and 1878 she suddenly became
a doctrinaire Tibetan Mahayana Buddhist. I do believe we'll never know how
this totally agnostic person suddenly became a Guru of the Tibetan Mahayana
Buddhist-Adwaitee Brahmin sect, but she did. 

I am devoted to the theosophical movement as it was founded in 1875 and as
it was derived from Yelena's entire life style and experience before that
time. It was an iconoclastic agnostics dream, a way to expand your mind,
your intelligence and your awareness and grow. Then suddenly the inexorable
slide into religion began and it has now reached its culmination in "Core
Doctrinal Theosophy".