Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00115)

Hello Frank:

I'm afraid your argument is too weak from my point of view.

You say:

> You speculate that the 12-globes model was not taught by HPB. Why 
do YOU KNOW that? 
> Did you sit at her feet in London?
> The most you can say is that you did not find a positive dead 
letter proof in her PUBLISHED teachings.
> But bear in mind that HPB knew and taught much more than we find in 
her books or in the two lay degrees of O.S./E.S. and I.G.

To begin with, if that is your reasoning, then Annie Besant, being 
member of the I.G., was in a far better position of knowing what were 
her "secret teachings" than G. de Purucker, since he did not even 
meet HPB!!!!!! On that line of reasoning I could say that the 
teaching of Mars and Mercury was too secret to be known publicly at 
that moment, and that HPB refused the teaching in the SD just to veil 
Sinnett's remarks. Isn't it far more possible than your proposal?
On the other hand, since HPB and the Masters said there is a Nirvana 
after Globe G, taking the same time as the period of activity, and 
HPB offered a whole chronology with the times for each globe, round, 
chain, etc., if you follow the calculations, it is not possible to 
add 5 more Globes!!!!!
But that is only one example about de Purucker's teachings. There are 
many inconsistencies in his teaching if you take Blavatsky's as the 
last word.

Then you say:
 
> She also declared that a new messenger will come (GdeP was 
initiated in 1888 or 1889 by Judge) and give deeper explanations.

What????!!!! In 1888 the G de Purucker was living in Switzerland, and 
only in 1892 he attended a theosophical lecture in San Diego for the 
first time.
On the other hand, HPB's prediction was meant for the year 1975. 
Since nothing happened at that time, I don't know how do you 
reconcile the never-erring statements of HPB with that fact.
 
I think the first step to be a theosophist is to be very conscious of 
our psychological processes. Otherwise, we are caught by our 
ignorance. If anybody wants to support some theosophist's teachings, 
he has the right to do it. But he has to be sincere enough to 
recognize on what basis he does that. 
In spite of you claiming to stick to HPB's teachings, to me it is 
obvious you are supporting certain teachings because they were given 
by certain group of people. If de Purucker would have said Mars and 
Mercury are part of our chain, you would be supporting that teaching, 
and declaring Besant's teachings about the 12 Globes as pseudo-
Theosophy.
I think it is Ok to support anybody's teachings. I may say "I believe 
Annie Besant was a real occultist, I don't consider G. de Purucker as 
a spiritual person, therefore I trust in Annie Besant teachings and 
not in de Purucker's." That's alright.
But what is wrong from my point of view is to be unaware of, or 
unwilling to recognize, the true reasons behind our position; and 
also, being our position so fragile in those subjects far beyond our 
perception, I don't think it is intelligent to say so authoritatively 
that "this is pseudo-Theosophy, and this comes from the dzyan-school-
and-what-not-else".

Well friend, that's all for the time being.
All the best
p