[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: theos-talk H. P. Blavatsky commited many erros and mistakes? --- also in the Secret Doctrine?

Jun 10, 2011 02:54 PM
by M. Sufilight

Dear John

My views are:

*** 1 ***
About the Age of Aquarius and, yours and David Reigles stance:
Now I will admit that I am no expert on Astrology, and most would-be-theosophists are in fact not. But I can read and compare the various doctrines. I find that David Reigle may have a need to make his view fit with his Westernizing Alice A. Bailey ideas or maybe there is another reason...Let him explain how he arrived at his use of a Equinox, -- a Western one as far as I understand him, and not an Easter Equinox.

About this one particular issue the Age of Aquarius, we do not find Blavatsky talking about any Western spring Equinox in the quoted mentioned as far as I have seen.

Autumnal not the Spring or Vernal Equinox could to be the true indicator of mankindâs "astrological" state of development in the world today according to Hindu Calendars - which Blavatsky time and again seem to base her calculations and clairvoyant observations on. And that maybe the Autumnal Equinox need to be mirrored in the Zodiac. - And there seem to be other Equinoxes in the Eastern Astrological teachings. And it seems also important how one cuts the Zodiac into twelve pieces.
What views have there been forwarded on this by David Reigle and others? John?

Here is the actual quote which David Reigle and you accused Blavatsky of making an error in:
"* There are several remarkable cycles that come to a close at the end of this century. First, the 5,000 years of the Kaliyuga cycle; again the Messianic cycle of the Samaritan (also Kabalistic) Jews of the man connected with Pisces (Ichthys or âFish-manâ Dag). It is a cycle, historic and not very long, but very occult, lasting about 2,155 solar years, but having a true significance only when computed by lunar months. It occurred 2410 and 255 B.C., or when the equinox entered into the sign of the Ram, and again into that of Pisces. When it enters, in a few years, the sign of Aquarius, psychologists will have some extra work to do, and the psychic idiosyncrasies of humanity will enter on a great change. "

As the readers can see, it can be questioned what kind of Equinox is followed. An Autumnal Equinox, Spring Equinox, or another kind of Eastern Equinox?
And it seems also important how one cuts the Zodiac into twelve pieces - exoterically or esoterically (ie. clairvoyantly, non-physically).

- - -
The Theosophist David Pratt has offered some views on the issue, and forwards, that there are several theories floating around these days.

I think we should keep the Hindu Calendars in mind when dealing with the issue.

- - -

*** 2 ***
John wrote:
"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. "

M. Sufilight says:
Throw some references on it from her writings in the years 1888-1891, and please leave Isis Unveiled out of it, because Blavatsky herself said some of the mistakes was not her fault, but old Olcott's, and that she did not know that much about the seven keys and other issues back then in 1877. And also reference on those "Q" sources, which I fail to remember. --- And if you do this, then please bear in mind that some of her papers and letters was written - with disregard for Dead-Letter teaching - using Gematria and the seven keys to the Mystery Language, and the some of the receivers at the other end, might have known about them, or might have been provoked in their inner "organ" of esoteric intuition by the writings.

*** 3 ***
John wrote:
"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"."

M. Sufilight says:
About Higgins I find that you are somewhat unfair. Yes, she quoted from his book from time to time. But his book also had faults, which was more or less corrected at various places. Throw me ...say... three paragraphs from Isis Unveiled, where Blavatsky verbatim stole from Higgins without quoting him - then we might agree to a certain extend -else I will decline you assertions. But please bear - also - the below quote and article in mind before you crucify Blavatsky about Isis Unveiled. And seek to be honest and objective in your judgment.

Blavatsky did not decide the title on Isis Unveiled, and said so herself. The publisher decided it. (See Collected Writings or one of her letters. I will search the quote if nobody else are able to provide it.)

HPB about the faults in Isis Unveiled etc.:
(â From My Books, Helena Blavatsky, 1891)
"But in spite of these perhaps too great admissions [about the vast inadequacies of the two books], I maintain that Isis Unveiled contains a mass of original and never hitherto divulged information on occult subjects. That this is so, is proved by the fact that the work has been fully appreciated by all those who have been intelligent enough to discern the kernel, and pay little attention to the shell, to give the preference to the idea and not to the form, regardless of its minor shortcomings. Prepared to take upon myself â vicariously as I will show â the sins of all the external, purely literary defects of the work, I defend the ideas and teachings in it, with no fear of being charged with conceit, since neither ideas nor teaching are mine, as I have always declared; and I maintain that both are of the greatest value to mystics and students of Theosophy".
"And what I say and maintain is this: Save the direct quotations and the many afore specified and mentioned misprints, errors and misquotations, and the general make-up of Isis Unveiled, for which I am in no way responsible, (a) every word of information found in this work or in my later writings, comes from the teachings of our Eastern Masters; and (b) that many a passage in these works has been written by me under their dictation. In saying this no supernatural claim is urged, for no miracle is performed by such a dictation."
"Hitherto, I have abstainedâexcept on very rare occasionsâfrom answering any criticism on my works, and have even left direct slanders and lies unrefuted, because in the case of Isis I found almost every kind of criticism justifiable, and in that of âslanders and lies,â my contempt for the slanderers was too great to permit me to notice them."

- - - - - - -

*** 4 ***

Now reading in the Akasha is not always an easy art, when you are no Master yet.
The 3 and 4 level initiates have to learn, and they are from time to time in need for their friends to help them - and - especially so - and - ALSO - because they are not always allowed to reveal their knowledge to the ignorant or vulgar, or those with a Karma. So they in fact have to pretend to be ignorant. The initiates operate by the use of Designs, (and their behaviour are because of that from time to time, and of necessity and of compassion - very strange to the uninitiated and ignorants,) measuring and evaluation.
Some of us know about the realities about these things - even when we do not claim to be on a level of a Master or even a Blavatsky or perhaps a Damodar Mavalankar.

Let those who accept clairvoyance deny the existence of the Akasha - and explain why it is not there, if they are willing. And let those who deny the existence of clairvoyance and the Akasha talk with the parapsychologists and even present day SPR. or let them deny that a dolphin (and even a bat) have a special sense known as a Bio-sonar, and that various migrating birds have a magnetic sense, which enable them to sense magnetic currents and navigate by them to a given country on the planet. - And let people deny that dogs and other animals can both hear and smell on a level which dumb polluted better-knowing humans are not able to do. - But some of us know about these extra ordinary sensory perception - and therefore we are not prepared to deny their existence in our time.

A Letter from Bertram Keightley about Blavatsky's clairvoyance:
"20b. Bertram Keightley, MayâJune, 1888, London [Keightley 1931, 21â3]

HPB always wrote the editorial [for Lucifer] herself, and also many other articles under more than one nom de plume, and she had a fancy for very often heading it with some quotation, and it used to be one of my troubles that she very seldom gave any reference for these, so that I had much work, and even visits to the British Museum Reading Room, in order to verify and check them, even when I did manage, with much entreaty, and after being most heartily "cussed," to extract some reference from her.

One day she handed me as usual the copy of her contribution, a story for the next issue, headed with a couple of four-line stanzas. I went and plagued her for a reference and would not be satisfied without one. She took the MS and when I came back for it, I found she had just written the name "Alfred Tennyson" under the verses. Seeing this, I was at a loss, for I knew my Tennyson pretty well and was certain that I had never read these lines in any poem of his, nor were they at all in his style. I hunted up my Tennyson, could not find them, consulted every one I could get atâalso in vain. Then back I went to HPB and told her all this and said that I was sure these lines could not be Tennysonâs, and I dared not print them with his name attached, unless I could give an exact reference. HPB just damned me and told me to get out and go to Hell. It happened that the Lucifer copy must go to the printers that same day. So I just told her that I should strike out Tennysonâs name when I went, unless she gave me a reference before I started. Just on starting I went to her again, and she handed me a scrap of paper on which were written the words: The Gemâ1831. "Well, HPB," I said, "this is worse than ever, for I am dead certain that Tennyson has never written any poem called "The Gem." All HPB said was just, "Get out and be off."

So I went to the British Museum Reading Room and consulted the folk there; but they could give me no help, and they one and all agreed that the verses could not be, and were not, Tennysonâs. As a last resort, I asked to see Mr. Richard Garnett, the famous Head of the Reading Room in those days, and was taken to him. I explained to him the situation and he also agreed in feeling sure the verses were not Tennysonâs. But after thinking quite a while, he asked me if I had consulted the Catalogue of Periodical Publications. I said no, and asked where that came in. "Well," said Mr. Garnett, "I have a dim recollection that there was once a brief-lived magazine called the Gem. It might be worth your looking it up." I did so, and in the volume for the year given in HPBâs note, I found a poem of a few stanzas signed "Alfred Tennyson" and containing the two stanzas quoted by HPB verbatim as she had written them down. And anyone can now read them in the second volume of Lucifer*: but I have never found them even in the supposedly most complete and perfect edition of Tennysonâs works."

Did the above help some of the readers?
All the above are of course just my views. And I wrote the words so that we might find the truth about compassion and the meaning of life in mutual friendship, ( and a non-secterian one, that is).

M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 9:39 PM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk H. P. Blavatsky commited many erros and mistakes? --- also in the Secret Doctrine?

  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 


  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 


  Seal of Solomon Birth Chart of Christ 


  astronomical sun enters age of Aquarius Google web search 


  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" <> 
  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 

  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]


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

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application