Theos-Talk Archives (May 2009 Message tt00251)

Dear Vera,

Thanks you for your contribution here to sound and fair methodology.

We can only take from HPB that which we find sufficiently verified for ourselves and reject that which we find sufficiently falsified for ourselves. 

All grand generalizations, including those coming from HPB herself or the Masters or Anand or Daniel or myself (and this statement), have to be taken provisionally and you have to develop your own ways of relating to them.

Govert



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Vera Santos 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:40 AM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Blavatsky made NO MISTAKES.





  Dear Govert
   
  Itâs  I who has to thank you for your feedback. My email was just a reply to Anandâs allegation that nobody had taken the trouble to thoroughly research HPBâs writings and that everyone has ignored them. As anyone can see, there were several people interested in confirming or refuting her citations.
   
  I fully agree with you that anyone can critically approach HPB, and this will not cause any harm to Theosophy provided that this approach is made honestly, without irony and sarcasm, and without trying to debase the person she was, and the teachings she made all efforts to leave to us.
   
  Iâm not a native English speaker, but as far as I understand, it seems to me that Anand has been systematically attacking HPB from all fronts, trying to convince us (and who else I donât know) that she is totally unreliable;  and this, from my humble point of view, is not fair. It is very easy to just keep saying that Blavatsky made âso many mistakesâ. I will give Anand some credit when he bothers to come up to this list and tells us what HPBâs mistakes are, why they are mistakes and what sources he uses to back up his allegations. 
   
  I am not afraid of any confrontation as to HPBâs writings, as I am searching for TRUTH. And just keeping superficially talking about subjects, doesnât make me feel comfortable.  By he just saying she (HPB) is wrong and we saying he (Anand) is wrong, will lead us nowhere. I want Anand to come to us and tell us what  HPBâs statements are wrong, in what book, article, page, etc.  they are to be found and show us what the best informed  authorities say to the contrary,  so that we can delve deeper into the subject. 
   
  Thus, letâs thoroughly discuss item by item, so that we can agree to agree or peacefully agree to disagree, and whatever the case maybe, this agreement will be on a sound basis. 
  Fraternally
  Vera 
   

  --- Em qua, 29/4/09, Govert Schuller <schuller@alpheus.org> escreveu:

  De: Govert Schuller <schuller@alpheus.org>
  Assunto: Re: Theos-World Blavatsky made NO MISTAKES.
  Para: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
  Data: Quarta-feira, 29 de Abril de 2009, 13:23

  Dear Vera,

  Thanks for the contribution. Coleman made some plausible allegations but never backed them up. Even a good scholar like Goodrick-Clarke took Coleman's statements for granted. And, yes, it looks like that HPB knew her eastern and western philosophy quite well, especially neo-platonism. But this doesn't mean she didn't make any mistakes. Her grasp of Kant was feeble, I found some contradictions here and there, and some sources she used look untrustworthy. But this will hopefully be further developed. I'm sure some mistakes will be able to be explained. Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with critically approaching HPB. Actually, it's not so much by trying to verify extraordinary statements that their worth is established, though that is important, but it's by their survival of attempted refutations that will really shine. So, if anybody is convinced of the rightness of HPB than they should not be afraid of a critical look and actually invite that. 

  Govert

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Vera Santos 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 7:30 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Blavatsky made NO MISTAKES.

  "Gomes also examined Coleman's criticism and, allowing for errors in manuscript preparation and typesetting, concluded that nearly every instance of quotation in Isis is acknowledged in one way or another (there are some 2,400 footnotes). Moreover, Dr. Graham Hough, Emeritus Professor of English, University of Cambridge, grudgingly admitted in The Mystery Religion of W. B. Yeats (1984, p.36) that "when she [HPB] cites an identifiable authority -- a Neoplatonic philosopher, for example -- it generally turns out that she gives a fair representation of what he actually said." One must also account for the testimony of Professor Hiram Corson of Cornell University, who was amazed by HPB's ability to quote "long verbatim paragraphs from dozens of books of which I am perfectly certain there were no copies at that time in America, translating easily from several languages, . . ." (see Michael Gomes, Dawning of the Theosophical Movement, pp. 143-55, 113.)"
  in http://www.theosoph y-nw.org/ theosnw/theos/ baboon.htm

  See also http://www.theosoci ety.org/pasadena /sunrise/ 25-75-6/th- hpbli.htm
  There is a very comprehensive article about HPB's quotes by John P. Van Mater on the website above. 

  "H.P. B.âs text is followed by an Appendix which consists of three sections:
  (a) Bibliography of Oriental Works which provides concise information regarding the best known editions of the Sacred Scriptures and other Oriental writings quoted from or referred to by H. P. B.
  (b) General Bibliography wherein can be found, apart from the customary particulars regarding all works quoted or referred to, succinct biographical data concerning the less known writers, scholars, and public figures mentioned by H. P. B. in the text, or from whose writings she quotes. It has been thought of value to the student to have this collected information which is not otherwise easily obtainable."
  In the Preface to HPB"s Collected Writings. 

  Just to mention a few... 

  --- Em ter, 28/4/09, Anand <AnandGholap@ gmail.com> escreveu:

  De: Anand <AnandGholap@ gmail.com>
  Assunto: Theos-World Re: why did Blavatsky make so many mistakes? why?
  Para: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
  Data: TerÃa-feira, 28 de Abril de 2009, 14:37

  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@yahoogro ups.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@yahoogro ups.com 
  > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:32 PM
  > Subject: Theos-World Re: why did Blavatsky made so many mistakes? why?
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.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]
  >

  Veja quais sÃo os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
  http://br.maisbusca dos.yahoo. com

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

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

  Veja quais sÃo os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
  http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com

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



  

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