Theos-Talk Archives (June 2011 Message tt00052)

Morten, 
Sorry, I agree with David Reigle's post that you were responding to. I do think Reigle gives a correct honest view of the actual record. In particular about his mention of the Age of Aquarius not beginning in the year 1900 as he says Blavatsky recounts. The Age of Aquarius has to have it's beginning moment when our Sun actually enters the 1st degree of the Constellation of Aquarius fully (which means our sun must be 0.05 degrees past the 1st degree point of Aquarius) Astronomically, we are now only just short of the 28th degree of Pisces and will not enter Aquarius until the year 2155 AD, 144 years in the future of today 2011 that makes the year 1900 invalid. I will give links on this particular topic later. 

Also if you recall Blavatsky was sorely castigated by many attacks accusiung her of not giving credit to authors whose books she used to include excerpts from in her published works. My view is she usually mention the "Q" source she used within the text she wrote even if it wasn't found in a bibliology as a formal procedural conformance. however I used her references to buy her "Q" sources she used so I could learn what she read that so impressed her. The point is she used a vast amount of inclusions throughout her writtings. A huge amount of material was used from the Anaclypsis of Sir Godfrey Higgins on comparitive origins of religions and the grand cycles of time and the ages. Also even the title of Higgins work may have contributed to Madame Blavatsky's "Isis Unveiled". Higgins work was titled " Anacalypsis, -- an Attempt To Draw Aside The Veil of The Saitic Isis" published London England 1836 A.D. in two Volumes, vol. 1 519 pages plus plates, vol. II 867 pages (1386 pages). The fact is Madame Blavatsky utilized many works of excellence and of high reputation probably upon the prompt of her Mahatma's and also maybe due to her Grandfather's huge library she had access to as a child. Also even G. R. S. Meade made comment that Madame Blavatsky kept us all very busy running to the Bodlien Library to research from the Books she would indicate for us to find. Whether you read Isis or SD or other works she made many references to published materials she used in putting forth her teachings in addition to what she was allowed to teach of the Mahatma Doctrines. 

The Aquarian Age -- A Rosecruxian View 

>>>ttp://www.rosicrucian.com/zineen/magen119.htm<<< 

Astrologers take note --- we are Nowhere near the "Dawning of the Age of Aquarius 

>>>http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/astrologers-take-note-we-are-nowhere-near-the-dawning-of-the-age-of-aquarius/<<< 

History of the Gregorian Calendar - Life of Christ Astrological Age of Aquarius 

>>>http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/chrono.htg/chrono.htm<<< 

Seal of Solomon Birth Chart of Christ 

>>>http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/christpi.htg/christpi.htm<<< 

astronomical sun enters age of Aquarius Google web search 

>>>http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=astronomical+sun+enters+age+of+aquarius&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=7ff7d408b5d36764&biw=1422&bih=751<<< 

BTW--- Chuck --- The Sun is the Sheperd -- the Planets are the Sheep (But I don't want to be a planet Chuck!!! lol) 















----- Original Message ----- 
From: "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@ElnTqopxyiA9U952dunRP8C61RxjbQFLSY1ciLqVc54OPgkuWdn6pnO2CHVpdsPtivPyY7TlY_65GgH88cbsxVmzRyuw.yahoo.invalid> 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 2:44:58 AM 
Subject: theos-talk H. P. Blavatsky commited many erros and mistakes? --- also in the Secret Doctrine? 






Dear friends 

My views are: 

In the below link from the forum named "The Theosophical Network" we find a recent post, dated June 6th this year, by the Sanskrit Scholar and theosophical seeker David Reigle - stating that H. P. Blavatsky commited many errors in her writings and many times merely repeated what other writers had written. 

Truth and Illusion in Theosophical Literature 
http://theosnet.ning.com/profiles/blogs/truth-and-illusion-in?xg_source=activity 

What do the readers on this - less moderated forum - think about such a view? 
Do they all agree with David Reigle's assertions? 

I disagree with David, because he is not giving a fair judgment of Blavatsky's writings as far as I know and can read. 
I would say, that Dead-Letter reading and thinking are not the highest aims to use, when seeking to understand H. P. Blavatsky's words and her motives. 

- - - 
A sidenote: 
I do not respond on the forum named "The Theosophical Network" because of its manner of operating and because the moderation on the forum is as far as I am concerned not in accordance with the original principles as they were given in the Theosophical Society and in its and Constitution in the years 1875-1891. 
The reading of articles given in the Society's magazine the Theosophist from that time aught to throw some light on this. 

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




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