Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00090)

Hallo all,

My views are:

Is blavatskyarchives just promoting ordinary Scholary Blavatsky-research?
You will have to make your own conclusion. The below text might be helpful,
when you compare it with the website in mention.


Do not be mislead by the scholars:
Real theosophists never have followed scholars, though they have frequently 
equaled or excelled scholars in scholarship.
Theosophists can do this because they do not regard scholarship as an end 
but as something useful: with the advantages and limitations corresponding to 
this function.
Scholars, quite often, do not show signs of understanding that there is 
anything beyond scholarship, and therefore they are incapacitated -- while they 
remain at this stage -- from being able to have a higher objective. One must always 
have an aspiration higher than one's actual status in order to rise, even in an 
existing field.

 Such scholars, because they cannot move beyond their conception of 
scholarship, are driven to believe and to practice two things:
       1. They tend to make themselves believe that scholarship is of. the 
highest nature among things and that scholars are a high, even special, 
product with some kind of property-interest in truth or even a peculiar, 
perhaps unique, capacity to perceive it. The historical records of scholars 
in this respect, not to mention their individual experiences in being 
refuted by events, do not daunt them.
       2. Because they know inwardly that this posture of theirs is not 
true, those of them in the appropriate field are compelled to resort to the 
study of the work, of their opponents (the Theosophists ). This is why 
scholars study the works of Theosophists, but Theosophists do not have to 
study the works of scholars, as one Theosophist has cogently remarked.
(Rewritten a bit from a text by Idries Shah)


What we have is, that Scholars often are not aware of the fact, that their
activities are quite limited.

What would it be to you, if one of the Mahatma letters later on was changed
by the very same Mahatma behind it , when it got be published?
Just doing this to suit the prejudices of the Scholary theosophical researchers
and medicore theosophical seekers.
- - - - - - -

Certain Theosophical emotional emailers seems to forget the following
very important statements by Blavatsky in her article 

"LODGES OF MAGIC"  written october 1888.
"The whole difficulty springs from the common tendency to draw conclusions 
from insufficient premises, and play the oracle before ridding oneself of 
that most stupefying of all psychic anæsthetics--IGNORANCE. "
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/LodgesOfMagic.htm


I will one more time repeat what Blavatsky said.
An excerpt:
THEOSOPHY OR JESUITISM? written by Blavatsky
"Theosophy and Jesuitism are the two opposite poles, one far above,
the other far below even that stagnant marsh. Both offer power--one to the
spiritual, the other to the psychic and intellectual Ego in man. The former
is "the wisdom that is from above . . . pure, peaceable, gentle . . . full
of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy," while
the latter is "the wisdom that descendeth not from above, but is earthly,
sensual, DEVILISH."3 One is the power of Light, the other that of Darkness.
. . ."
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/TheosophyOrJesuitism.htm (Published 
in Lucifer 1888)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]