Theos-Talk Archives (August 2009 Message tt00105)

Sampsa wrote:
My understanding on HPB's ignorance of Tibet is based on some articles of 
history science. For example, David Reigle shows how HPB quotes poor western 
sources of her time as "Mahatmic announcements" or "secret Buddhist 
tradition". Reigle, of course, is not critical towards Blavatsky; he 
emphasizes that HPB knew the genuine Bodhisattva ideal.


It is not the fault of HPB when she was forced to quote from poor western 
sources of her time, when they were the best available.
History science is not a trustworthy source. They often invent history by 
their own agenda and bias.
Historians are trained within a materialistic mindset, so they do not 
understand one iota of metaphysical thought, although many great men 
appeared in history with open metaphysical thought.
As they cannot understand it, they claim this heroes were madmen. In cases 
of common reputation as with Goethe or Newton they silence their esoterical 
insights.

In the recent "modern" materialistic Germany of the after 1945 insanity 
period a university student can study Goethe, Schiller for years and will 
never hear one word about their mystic background.

Sampsa wrote:
It is very true that Theosophy is not Buddhism, but sometimes HPB PRESENTS 
some doctrines and cultural facts as actual Buddhism. Today we know well 
that all those things don't belong to Buddhism at all.


When HPB spoke of Buddhism she ment the higher secret esoteric teachings of 
the Buddha, whose chelas HPB's masters were.
You shall not intermix the Buddhism of today with the original teachings of 
the Buddha.

It is as sect experts who write long articles about theosophy, which is but 
a twisted version from new age writers as I am, White Eagle, Bailey etc.

Frank