Theos-Talk Archives (May 2009 Message tt00000)

On Apr 28, 2009, at 4/28/091:37 PM, Anand wrote:

> 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?

Not ironic but natural... Since Blavatsky didn't give the esoteric  
Hindus anything they didn't already know.  However, she didn't write  
the secret Doctrine for them -- but for the edification of the  
westerners who had never heard of the esoteric wisdom.  It's also no  
wonder that the exoteric Hindus give little notice to Blavatsky --  
since her theosophical teachings denies most of their iconography and  
anthropomorphic Gods as well as contradicts their dogmas about  
reincarnation into animal forms.  In fact, it was on those grounds  
that Swami Dayananda of the Arya Samaj, who originally partnered with  
Blavatsky, ultimately disagreed and parted company.   From then on  
theosophy was on its own, and only gained notoriety when Annie Besant  
politicized it after HPB left India in disgust due to the false  
accusations of the Coulomb's and the published report of the British  
Psychical Society (later retracted).

Incidentally, my teacher of Hindu Advaitan philosophy was the former  
Guru-Ji of the present Arya Samaj sect in India before he left his  
ashram in Adyar to open a branch in New York during the early 80s.   
(He and I still have disagreements on the nature of reincarnation --  
yet he agreed entirely with my scientific ABC model of cosmogenesis,  
and the analogous seven fold (eight field) nature of man that exactly  
conforms with the teachings of Blavatsky as well as the Book of the  
Golden Precepts and the Vedas. ;-)

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that Blavatsky's theosophy never  
really caught on in the West (as compared to other religious  
organizations) because she also denied the Christian iconography,  
theology, personal God, divinity of jesus, vicarious atonement,  
etc.?  And, how could any true Christian believer join the TS under  
its original charter and teachings of HPB  -- without being a  
hypocrite?  Could that be why it was so important for CWL and AB to  
"doctor" the true ancient fundamental teachings, and turn the  
Theosophical Society into a reflection of the early Catholic Church  
in order to attract Christian members?

So, I think you are barking up trees with your attacking of Blavatsky  
and her followers -- while promoting the false teachings of  
Leadbeater and Besant as being the only true theosophy.

I suggest that you throughly study the writings of Blavatsky -- like  
I thoroughly studied Leadbeater and Besant (as well other spin offs  
from or interpreters of Blavatsky, such as Bailey, Steiner, Gurdjieff  
and Crowley, besides all the ancient philosopher-scientists Blavatsky  
quoted) -- before you make any more accusations, innuendoes and  
assertions -- that can only make you look foolish and uneducated in  
true occult teachings or fundamental theosophy.

LHM
>
> --- 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 keyâ?"the key of matterâ?"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 moonsâ?"a mystery again which  
>> no Å'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 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]
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

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