Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00214)

I just want to say I don't "reject all teachings which are not 
expressed in "The Secret Doctrine" I think that's clear enough. I'm 
just saying: You say AB and Leadbeater said different things from 
HPB's teachings. So GdeP did. But of course, in the former case it is 
pseudo theosophy, in the latter a deepening of it. That is what I 
find "non-intelligent".

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer" <dzyan@...> 
wrote:
>
> Daniel,
> in regard to myself I can agree with all reserves you mention.
> I think it is a healthy sign to have too much reservations against 
the own
> position or "occult standing" as to have too less of them.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I am as a lay not in a position to give 
authoritative
> doctrinal statements, but just my own understanding and meaning on 
request
> of Pablo.
> Until know I have not fully understood Pablo's intention and see 
not the
> doctrinal differences between Purucker and Blavatsky as to their 
> presentation
> of the dogmas of theosophy.
> 
> My intermediate result of my discourse with Pablo is, that he 
sticks on
> words and catches not the sense. Usually this lack of understanding 
is a
> lack of discriminition power (buddhi-manas), which is a sine qua 
non in the
> occult realm, don't?
> 
> When Pablo rejects all teachings which are not expressed in "The 
Secret
> Doctrine" (although one can find hints to them), then logically he 
must be
> convinced that only one globe exists as the SD concerns mainly with 
the  4th
> globe, ergo: The first three globes must be a blind, there is only 
one
> globe!! Judeo-Christian talmudic dead-letter!
> 
> But, Daniel, as you write:
> 
> =>I personally have preferred to focus my attention, time and study 
on
> the teachings as first given out by H.P.B. and in the Mahatma 
Letters.
> 
> ... I have to object this, because it was and is not the intention 
of both
> HPB as of her teachers to focus the attention that way.
> That would make a museum out of Theosophy, a dead thing, a kind of 
new
> Vatican (only will a better "bible").
> 
> We are now in danger to fall into the old trodden astral tracks of 
some
> 2,000 years ago and repeat the deadly mistakes as reincarnated 
Christians.
> We must not repeat and repeat endless the old scenes like Phil 
Connors
> (again a "Co"...:-))) in Griondhog Day...:-)))
> 
> Your position reminds me of the fundamentalist position of the ULT, 
those
> people who obviously believe that after HPB's and/or Judge's death 
the
> occult machines have stopped and no further advancement was 
possible and no
> new teachings were given out.
> 
> GdeP declared half-publicly that he was sent my the Masters of 
Wisdom to
> give out NEW teachings, which the three messengers preceding him in 
the
> guruparampara were not allowed, because the time was not reap.
> 
> Real theosophy is a living thing and living things must not locked 
up. To
> stick on HPB and ML would lead to crystallized, bigot and 
regressing 
> behaviour.
> It is against all written and unwritten teeachings we have from HPB 
and her
> teachers.
> 
> She herself directed us, the theosophists of the future, to follow 
her (in
> spirit, not in dead letter) and keep the link unbroken and 
therefore make 
> her last incarnation not a failure.
> That were her last words before changing the stage and that was 
also her 
> last
> symbol on her last photo to us.
> 
> "It is needless to explain that this book is not the Secret 
Doctrine in its
> entirety, but a select number of fragments of its fundamental 
tenets,
> special attention being paid to some facts which have been seized 
upon by
> various writers, and distorted out of all resemblance to the truth."
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-0-co.htm#preface
> 
> "But these two volumes had to serve as a PROLOGUE, and prepare the 
reader's
> mind for those which shall now follow. [...]"
> "These two volumes only constitute the work of a pioneer who has 
forced his
> way into the well-nigh impenetrable jungle of the virgin forests of 
the Land
> of the Occult. A commencement has been made to fell and uproot the 
deadly
> upas trees of superstition, prejudice, and conceited ignorance, so 
that
> these two volumes should form for the student a fitting prelude for 
Volumes
> III. and IV. Until the rubbish of the ages is cleared away from the 
minds of
> the Theosophists to whom these volumes are dedicated, it is 
impossible that
> the more practical teaching contained in the Third Volume should be
> understood. Consequently, it entirely depends upon the reception 
with which
> Volumes I. and II. will meet at the hands of Theosophists and 
Mystics,
> whether these last two volumes will ever be published, though they 
are
> almost completed.
> 
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd2-3-09.htm
> 
> "One turn of the key, and no more, was given in "Isis." Much more is
> explained in these volumes. In those days the writer hardly knew the
> language in which the work was written, and the disclosure of many 
things,
> freely spoken about now, was forbidden. In Century the Twentieth 
some
> disciple more informed, and far better fitted, may be sent by the 
Masters of
> Wisdom to give final and irrefutable proofs that there exists a 
Science
> called Gupta-Vidya; and that, like the once-mysterious sources of 
the Nile,
> the source of all religions and philosophies now known to the world 
has been
> for many ages forgotten and lost to men, but is at last found."
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-0-in.htm
> 
> Judge confirms HPB's prediction, that in the 20th century a "more 
informed
> disciple" will come "to give and irrefutable proofs that there 
exists a
> Science called Gupta-Vidya", cp. his "Echoes of the orient", Vol. 
I, p. 283.
> 
> WHO WAS IT??? DID HE COME OR DID HE/SHE/IT NOT COME?
> 
> Elsewhere K.H. states that the TS is but the pioneer for greater 
things to
> come in the next centuries. From the Mahatma's point of view, from 
a full 
> human
> or superhuman view, it would look quite idiotic to asume that the 
esoteric
> world stopped with the passing of HPB or someone else. From that 
point of
> view even the erratic und lunatic position of a Besant is much 
closer to the
> truth!!!
> 
> So, if you say: It does not concern me, what HPB's successors in 
the Tibetan
> transmission line said, I have enough to read with the SD and ML 
(and I
> agree, it's a full time and life life time job!) is the same as to 
say that
> high schools and universities must be closed, because in the 
primary school
> is so much to learn and that is enough and even most of the adults 
will not
> understand all the stuff of a primary school if you would ask on 
the street!
> 
> Or take the Amish people. They say: We need no tv, no phone, no 
electricity,
> no automobiles, horses and candelars are enough!!!
> 
> As the Christians perverse their Jesus, above all the "Jesuits", the
> Theosophists pervert the Theosophy of HPB.
> 
> From now on I speak of those anti-Blavatskian Blavatsky-
"Theosophist" not as
> pseudo-theosophists, but as Amish-theosophists!!!
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: danielhcaldwell
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:17 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Pablo AND Frank on discrepancies between 
Purucker &
> Blavatsky
> 
> 
> Pablo AND Frank
> on discrepancies between Purucker & Blavatsky
> 
> Well, after reading both Pablo's and Frank's postings
> on the above issue, I would say that neither writer
> has presented a good case....at least so far.
> 
> But setting aside both Frank's and Pablo's views, the basic problem
> would appear to be as follows:
> 
> What student of Theosophy has actually carefully read and studied
> H.P.B.'s writings in enough depth and detail to be in
> a position to say this is what H.P.B. teaches on [NAME THE SUBJECT,
> in this case on the Kumaras]??
> 
> Then has that same student then gone and carefully
> read and studied all of G. de Purucker's writings
> in enough depth, etc. to understand what he is teaching on this
> or that subject???
> 
> And then, who has taken the additional time and effort
> to compare and contrast the teachings of Blavatsky and
> Purucker in enough depth, etc. so that one is in a good position
> to know if there are actually such real discrepancies or not???
> 
> The above study would take probably years to adequately do!
> 
> Over the years I have known students on both sides of the fence.
> 
> For example, the late Walter Carrithers, Jr. and Leona Sterba had
> some serious reservations about some of G. de Purucker's teachings.
> Especially Mr. Carrithers. Others pesons could be mentioned.
> 
> On the other hand, there are many students who are very impressed
> with Purucker's teachings. The late John Cooper, Jerry Hejka-Edkins,
> Elton Tucker, to just name a few!
> 
> I personally have preferred to focus my attention, time and study on
> the teachings as first given out by H.P.B. and in the Mahatma 
Letters.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Well, for one reason, there is more than 10,000 pages of H.P.B. and
> the Mahatmas' writings. That's alot of pages! Just to read! not
> counting the time to actually study and ... maybe understand!
> 
> I personally find SO MUCH MATERIAL here in this Blavatsky corpus of
> writings that is more than enough to try to read, study and .....
> understand.
> 
> I'm afraid that in many cases I've only skimmed the surface of some
> of this Blavatsy/Mahatma literature.
> 
> Maybe I have a small brain capacity....
> 
> Now don't get me wrong, I have also read some of the books by 
Besant,
> Judge, Leadbeater, Purucker, etc. etc. All of these books that I
> have read contain food for thought, if nothing else.
> 
> But I have focused primarily on the Blavatsky material simply 
because
> at some point, one must ask oneself: how many books by all these
> different authors do I want to read? And what is to be accomplished
> by reading more and more....
> 
> So I have returned time and time again to the Blavastky
> writings ...those 10,000 plus pages...and I find myself amazed at 
the
> profundity and depth there....
> 
> I sometimes grin to myself when I hear writers say: Well, you know
> that H.P.B. only presented a "fragment" of the real Theosophical
> teachings. No doubt, No doubt, I reply. But what a fragment! What
> a HUGE fragment!
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>