Theos-Talk Archives (October 2006 Message tt00068)

Re  Dan's Pretty Mahatma
  
   Well, as usual, Dan ignores comments 
made in criticism to the pseudo- concentration
-"letter" and finds ONE among them he 
thinks he can disclaim.  (Note: there 
is no "concentration-letter," but only 
his compilation from various sources which 
he _calls_ a letter!) If Blavatsky even 
thought about it, she may have thought 
the supposed letter refered to by ver 
Planck was something of Sinnett's bonafide 
letters (can anyone remember the contents 
of All those letters?)  One can use logic 
to uphold or defeat any fact or circumstance, 
genuinely or not.  I'll use your quote:
  
<In a letter dated June 5, 1888 to 
W.Q. Judge, Madame Blavatsky wrote:
  
"....I say — Blessed are the pure 
hearted who have only intuition for 
intuition is better than intellect...."
  
   Blavatsky says somewhere that many 
of the most "logical" and respected 
of scientists are actually soul-less, 
they only have their Brain, and not 
the higher principles.  One might 
wonder about that in considering some 
theosophical historians also.
  
   I say, by all means, if you think 
meditating on a guru's image is the 
right thing to do, then by all means 
do what you want!  (I recommend you 
visualize a big strong one, with long 
hair and pearly white teeth.)  My own 
thought is that after a certain point 
the Teachers say:  "Well, they must 
develop their own discrimination, if 
they have none and think such hogwash 
is truth - then Let them!  If they 
can't develop their own intuition and 
depend upon themselves, then that is 
all the further they can go, for now."
  
>From the same letter you quote HPB:
  
<...You know that S.R. [Subba Row] 
claimed for the two past years to be
in communication with my Master....!!!..." 
  
   'And she implied that they were 
phoney communications.  'And I ask 
you that if Subba Row could fall, and 
be getting phoney communications, 
couldn't this also happen to Judge?  
NO ONE operating publicly at the level 
of Subba Row or Judge can avoid eventually 
being corrupted, which is why the school 
is not public.  (And HPB had extra-special 
help, even not leaving her apartment 
for 6 mos.)  Does this mean that one 
rejects all Subba Row's and Judge's 
writings? - of course not.  (And I think 
Judge didn't get corrupted and confused, 
but everyone around him did.)  (The 
type of confusion that dan creates.)  
It is probably a phenomena that HPB 
could keep up with as much as she did, 
and you can't ascribe omniscence to 
her to see what was going on everywhere.  
(One wonder's if the purpose of all 
this is to create doubt in Judge...)
  
    On another of dan's quotes (which 
he _doesn't_ provide the reference for) 
he has HPB saying:
  
   <She writes to Coues:  I know 
nothing about the number of messages 
you may have received from Masters through 
Judge, whom I would never believe capable 
of it, or any one else. Once Mahatma K. H. 
and my Master say they did not emanate 
from them, I am bound to believe what 
they say; and therefore must suppose 
such messages either tricks made by chelas 
or pure frauds...">  ((Or Coues Lies....))
  
     So is HPB saying there that even 
Judge was deluded about getting 
communications? (no reference)  
  
    I have to look up that Key to Theosophy
quote DC used yet.
  
    While Blavatsky says that in her 
school meditation begins with the pituary, 
and that "Our chakras are all in the head..." 
- which doesn't agree with visualizing a 
personal guru in the heart... Another 
contradiction with this against personal-guru 
worship is the teacher's statement:
  
    "....learn to be loyal to the Idea, 
rather than to my poor self..."  (MLs pp. 
323-24, TUP)
  
    Is this consistent with visualizing 
a teacher's "poor self" in meditation?
  
     Also, since no one else is compiling 
all this information (for what ultimate 
motivations, one wonders sometimes), and 
discussions are usually based on quotes 
dan makes - I'm realizing that it is 
not wise to depend upon dan's quotations, 
as I know at least one incidence (which 
I could look up), and have others to 
look up, - where he is inconsistent.  
He said at first that the concentration-
"letter" was referred to in the Path 
"'87, '88, & '89" - then changed it to 
"'88, '89...", - and then again changed 
it to only "'89, '90,..."  What happened 
to the disappearing references?  I don't 
trust dan's references any more.  And I, 
as well as most others, don't care enough 
or think important enough to do the 
research on all these miscroscopic points. 
(Whats the real motivation behind this, 
except to create doubt and confusion, 
which can be done on ANY point given 
the effort....)
  
   Does it occur to anyone that dan 
is effectively Destroying the theosophical 
history reference base - through the 
back door, so to speak.  Through his 
accumulation of all this huge amount of 
material he has, in HIS copyrighted version 
- other people don't accumulate it themselves.  
'So one has to rely on his Copyrighted 
version on line.  Then on top of it - his 
"Esoteric World of Madame B." - a huge 
amount of material - CANNOT BE USED OR 
QUOTED BY ANYONE! - because he has 
Silently Edited it, (not indicating what 
is edited out with elision....) - and 
who would trust and use this for quotes
.... Nobody!  I only have one question 
now - dan.... who is your "mini me" for 
your "Dr. Evil"?
  
      I thought that was an excellent 
response by Rodolpho Don on Raul's inquiry!
  
      Very interesting article sent in 
by Cass on all the popes.
  
      Back to philosophy and away from 
this crappola!
          - jake j.
  ---------------------------
  
 

 		
---------------------------------
 All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

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