Theos-Talk Archives (April 2009 Message tt00421)

Dear friends and Govert

My views are:

Thanks.
You asked: What does that imply if a physical, scientific claim does not pan out? 

We have to ask ourselves what kind of "scientific" claim we consider using. One with only one Key or one using all the 7 Keys of interpretation or knowledge.

I would say as long as a person do not quite know how the 7 keys operates one will have to take this into account as a possibility.
And therefore I also provided the quote taken from Idries Shah's book, because the words in that quote are quite logical when viewed from an esoteric point of view. Do you not think so? 

So if inaccuraccies might occur, they could have been created deliberately with another aim in mind, than perceived by the non-initiated or lees able Seeker. Yet if the inaccuracy are consistent and mentioned several times, then we might consider it to be a mistake on the writers part, in this case Blavatsky's. That seems logical. Even so that might also be a false conslusion to reach. - Yet the theosophists are always concerned with the Truth and with Knowledge instead of assumptions. So  "We cull the good we find in each", while we seek to make use of the Akasa records. 

- - - - - - - -


Here is a little story...


*** True and false teachers ***

Since there are so many people all over the world claiming that
they are spiritual teachers, many of those who want to follow
them - and those who want to refute them - spend much time
trying to work out which are real ones and which are not.
What is rather remarkable is that a great many of these
self-styled teachers are discernibly not teachers, if studied with
the normal rational apparatus which is of some value even to
Seekers after Truth.

There is a story about a man who went up to another one who
was selling what he described as 'the most deliciuos and 
irreplaceable honey in the world' in a market-place. 'If it is so
marvellous,' he asked, 'why are you selling it?'
'I wouldn't try, you may be sure,' answered the honey-seller,
'if a mouse hadn't fallen into it!'

Now, in spiritual matters it may be claimed that the seeker,
however sincere, connot tell whether there is a mouse in the
honey of the teaching which he offered. But if he would only
steel himself to look at the honey with dead mice floating on top,
he would start to learn how to recognize the real thing. If you
can test a verifiable counterfeit, you will eventually find a coin
which is gold. Those who start at the other end: who can test
gold without being confused by counterfeits, are a different lot
of people, sad to say.





M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Govert Schuller 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 7:52 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: why did Blavatsky made so many mistakes? why?





  Dear Morten,

  Thanks for the explanation for the set of possible inaccuracies which have to do with the deeper meaning of esoteric metaphysics. 

  As HPB said (and you quoted):

  "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."

  This implies that in less abstruse cases there is less left to be desired, i.e. she would be less fallible and therefore more accurate.

  The non-abstruse and non-metaphysical ideas in HPB's work I'm interested in are those that can be checked against the scientific record like historical, astronomical and biological data. I'm also looking into her use and understanding of western philosophy as I have studied some of that myself. 

  Of course it's possible that even if certain ideas are inaccurate in one perspective they might yield meaning in another. 

  Again, as HPB stated:

  "... that which may not fit a meaning, say from the psychological or astronomical aspect, will be found quite correct from the physical or metaphysical." (or other way around)

  But, her observation was preceded by the qualification that 

  "... there are seven keys of interpretation to every symbol and allegory ..." 

  So, it looks like that to any "symbol and allegory" there are seven keys of interpretation, some of which might be scientific and some of which might not yield any meaning.

  What does that imply if a physical, scientific claim does not pan out? 

  Govert

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Morten Nymann Olesen 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:59 AM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: why did Blavatsky made so many mistakes? why?

  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 keyâthe key of matterâto 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 moonsâa mystery again which no Ådipus 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 â not Satanic but simply Atlantic, and the Hermaphrodites before the latter â 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]



  

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