Theos-Talk Archives (April 2009 Message tt00418)

Dear friends and Anand

My views are:

The theosophical wisdom teachings are not easily learnt, whereas stupidity are quite common and therefore often shown among teachers with a large following.

The wisdom teaching put small value on a great number of loud mouth members, which do not understand the teaching or who misunderstand them, or who will not listen to the teachings even if they are told the truth about it and about wisdom. And the wisdom teaching put small value on a great number of members if these members motives are to work behind the scenes for selfish ends or seeking to crush the T.S. and perhaps even the E.S.

The Master said: We do no force unwilling slaves.
D.K. said: "Well you ought to know that when there is a strong desire on both sides Masters never interfere. They cannot prevent people from 'hanging' themselves."



H. P. Blavatsky said:
"ENQUIRER. Do you mean to tell me that it is because a few have understood what Theosophy leads to, that they try to crush the movement? But if Theosophy leads only to good, surely you cannot be prepared to utter such a terrible accusation of perfidious heartlessness and treachery even against those few?

THEOSOPHIST. I am so prepared, on the contrary. I do not call the enemies we have had to battle with during the first nine or ten years of the Society's existence either powerful or "dangerous"; but only those who have arisen against us in the last three or four years. And these neither speak, write nor preach against Theosophy, but work in silence and behind the backs of the foolish puppets who act as their visible marionnettes. Yet, if invisible to most of the members of our Society, they are well known to the true "Founders" and the protectors of our Society. But they must remain for certain reasons unnamed at present. "


- - -
Have a look at my three e-mails just posted on T.S. versus E.S.: 
Theos-World Blavatsky on T.S. vs Esoteric Section part 1, 2 and 3



M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anand 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 7:37 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: why did Blavatsky make so many mistakes? why?





  Is it that researchers are not interested in Blavatsky's writing much, that they ignore it? Despite all Blavatsky's praise of India and the East, Blavatsky is least appreciated in India and the East. Is it not ironic? 

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
  >
  > 
  > May I?
  > 
  > Some appearnt inaccuracies given by H. P. Blavatsky happend according to my views because of the importance of the use of the Seven Keys, and the Mystery Language. 
  > 
  > That of course apart from the recent e-mails here at Theos-talk on the faults in Isis Unveiled due to certain problems created by H. S. Olcott and some economical problems preventing the necessary corrections being made in time.
  > 
  > 
  > 1.
  > H. P. Blavatsky said:
  > "Why should Venus and Mercury have no satellites, and by what, when they exist, were they formed? Because, we say, science has only one keyÃâ"the key of matterÃâ"to open the mysteries of nature withal, while occult philosophy has seven keys and explains that which science fails to see. Mercury and Venus have no satellites but they had "parents" just as the earth had. Both are far older than the Earth and, before the latter reaches her seventh Round, her mother Moon will have dissolved into thin air, as the "Moons" of the other planets have, or have not, as the case may be, since there are planets which have several moonsÃâ"a mystery again which no Ã'dipus of astronomy has solved." (The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 155)
  > http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume_I.htm
  > 
  > 2.
  > H. P. Blavatsky said:
  > " It is maintained that INDIA (not in its present limits, but including its ancient boundaries) is the only country in the world which still has among her sons adepts, who have the knowledge of all the seven sub-systems and the key to the entire system. Since the fall of Memphis, Egypt began to lose those keys one by one, and Chaldea had preserved only three in the days of Berosus. As for the Hebrews, in all their writings they show no more than a thorough knowledge of the astronomical, geometrical and numerical systems of symbolizing all the human, and especially the physiological functions. They never had the higher keys." (The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 311)
  > 
  > 3.
  > "For, his pre-Adamic races Ãââ not Satanic but simply Atlantic, and the Hermaphrodites before the latter Ãââ are mentioned in the Bible when read esoterically, as they are in the Secret Doctrine. The SEVEN KEYS open the mysteries, past and future, of the seven great Root Races, as of the seven Kalpas. "
  > (The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 325)
  > 
  > 4.
  > "All the words and sentences placed in brackets in the Stanzas and Commentaries are the writer's. In some places they may be incomplete and even inadequate from the Hindu standpoint; but in the meaning attached to them in Trans-Himalayan Esotericism they are correct. In every case the writer takes any blame upon herself. Having never claimed personal infallibility, that which is given on her own authority may leave much to be desired, in the very abstruse cases where too deep metaphysics is involved. The teaching is offered as it is understood; and as there are seven keys of interpretation to every symbol and allegory, that which may not fit a meaning, say from the psychological or astronomical aspect, will be found quite correct from the physical or metaphysical." (The Secret Doctrine, vol. 2, p. 22)
  > 
  > 
  > 5.
  > 
  > "Characteristics of Theosophical Litterature
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Here are a few characteristics of Theosophical litterature. Read the below carefully and do not underestimate the contents value: 
  > 
  > A. Some books, some passages, are intended to be read in a certain order. 
  > 
  > B. Some books and passages have to be read under specific environmental conditions. 
  > 
  > C. Some have to be read aloud, some silently, some alone, some in company. 
  > 
  > D. Some are only vehicles for illustrations or other content generally regarded as extraneous or secondary to the text. 
  > 
  > E. Some are of limited use or ephemeral function, being addressed to communities in certain places, at certain stages of development, or for a limited time. 
  > 
  > F. Some forms have concealed meanings which yield coherent but misleading meanings, safety-devices to ward of tamperers. 
  > 
  > G. Some are interlarded with material deliberately designed to confuse or sidetrack those who are not properly instructed, for their own protection. 
  > 
  > H. Some books contain a completely different potential, and they are communicators through another means than the writing contained in them. They are not designed primarily to be read at all. 
  > 
  > I. Theosophical litterature is a part of carefully worked out plan. Its abuse lead to nothing of permanent value. 
  > 
  > Theosophical teachings, and sometimes keys to it, are sometimes embedded in quite other material, not recognisable as theosophical at all to the uninitiated. Many of these teachings are really meditation-themes. They have deep function almost unknown to the pedestrian conventionalists, enthusiasts, imitators or occultist. " (Rewritten by me from Idries Shah's book "Learning How to Learn")
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > M. Sufilight
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: Anand 
  > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:32 PM
  > Subject: Theos-World Re: why did Blavatsky made so many mistakes? why?
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@> wrote:
  > >
  > > 
  > > On Apr 24, 2009, at 4/24/097:26 PM, Anand wrote:
  > > 
  > > > Blavatsky gives many references. Has anyone checked whether those 
  > > > references are correct or not? Has anyone shown contradictions?
  > >
  > 
  > Few weeks back Govert said he checked few references from Blavatsky's writing and found that they were wrong. That prompted this interesting question whether anybody has checked references given by Blavatky. It is very strange that there is no popular book dealing with accuracy and inaccuracy of her references. For last many months my inner voice is telling me to do assessment of Blavatsky's writing. But you can imagine it is more convenient to see if anybody has done it already.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



  

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