Theos-Talk Archives (October 2011 Message tt00023)

Dear Paulo and readers

My views are:

Well thanks.

Yes. David Reigle is claming a lot, but often in a manner a scholar would use.

Interesting to hear about Portugal.
So what to do about it? Business as usual?
(smile.)


M. Sufilight



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: paulobaptista_v 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 4:15 PM
  Subject: theos-talk Re: David Reigle's latest attack on H. P. Blavatksy's integrity


    
  Morten,

  OK. When he replied in the "What did Blavatsky miss?" thread he wrote the following:

  "For me, the biggest thing that Blavatsky missed was her omitting to tell us the actual name of the Book of Dzyan. Having it would have made my life a lot easier, and saved me loads of work."

  That´s why I tought you were referring to this thread.

  Thanks for sharing the link for "Theosophy and Politics", an article published in the Theosophical Movement (July 1963).

  It is a very controversial issue among theosophists, particularly here in Portugal, where we have a new party called PAN (Party for Animals and Nature) who has a political programme that, to some extent, is theosophy inspired. In fact the leader of PAN is the President of the major Buddhist organization in the country.

  Some theosophists are in the ranks of this new party.
  Paulo

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
  >
  > Dear Paulo and friends
  > 
  > My views are:
  > 
  > No. I was actually referring to the "The Origins of the Stanzas of Dzyan - A Project" thread where David Reigle posted recently
  > 
  > "It is a great loss to students of Theosophy that William Emmette Coleman's unpublished writings were lost in the fire following the great San Francisco earthquake."......and so on....."
  > Like William Emmette Coleman and Boris de Zirkoff, I, too, have over the years found much in HPB's writings that comes from sources available in her time, erroneous sources.".....and more of them same...
  > 
  > 
  > I do not find the loss of William Emmette Coleman's unpublished writings a problem since he was not an honest man in certain respects.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > M. Sufilight
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: paulobaptista_v 
  > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:32 AM
  > Subject: theos-talk Re: David Reigle's latest attack on H. P. Blavatksy's integrity
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Morten, 
  > 
  > I don´t know if you are referring to the topic "What did Blavatsky miss?" where some members of that forum are theorizing about M and KH being pseudonyms used by HPB...This is strange to me after reading the history of the first years of theosophical society from so many different sources... 
  > 
  > Now they are trying to figure out how did HPB put so many references from other books in the SD... I wonder what new theory will arise?
  > 
  > I must say that I totally agree with your remarks about Besant. Adoration and theosophy do not relate.
  > 
  > Best regards,
  > Paulo 
  > 
  > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@> wrote:
  > >
  > > Dear friends
  > > 
  > > My views are:
  > > 
  > > I just saw David Reigle's latest post at The Theosophical Network forum.
  > > Why not throw mr. David Reigle at The Theosophical Network http://theosnet.ning.com the following article by Daniel Caldwell.
  > > It seems that the learned scholar is a bit uncritcal in his latest remarks in the thread on Dzyan Stanzas.
  > > 
  > > "Some Observations on the Claims Made by Boris de Zirkoff and Others"
  > > by Daniel H Caldwell
  > > http://theosophicalglossary.net/
  > > 
  > > 
  > > - - - - - - - -
  > > 
  > > The same on other of H. P. Blavatsky's writings.
  > > Let us not forget the following words by H. P. Blavatsky given in the Secret Doctrine. Words that might explain some of the critic launched by David Reigle.......
  > > 
  > > The Secret Doctrine Vol. I, p. xxxviii-xlv:
  > > "Such a work as this has to be introduced with no simple Preface, but with a volume rather; one that would give facts, not mere disquisitions, since the SECRET DOCTRINE is not a treatise, or a series of vague theories, but contains all that can be given out to the world in this century.
  > > 
  > > It would be worse than useless to publish in these pages even those portions of the esoteric teachings that have now escaped from confinement, unless the genuineness and authenticity-at any rate, the probability-of the existence of such teachings was first established. Such statements as will now be made, have to be shown warranted by various authorities: those of ancient philosophers, classics and even certain learned Church Fathers, some of whom knew these doctrines because they had studied them, had seen and read works written upon them; and some of whom had even been personally initiated into the ancient Mysteries, during the performance of which the arcane doctrines were allegorically enacted. The writer will have to give historical and trustworthy names, and to cite well-known authors, ancient and modern, of recognized ability, good judgment, and truthfulness, as also to name some of the famous proficients in the secret arts and science, along with the mysteries of the latter, as they are divulged, or, rather, partially presented before the public in their strange archaic form.
  > > 
  > > How is this to be done? What is the best way for achieving such an object? was the ever-recurring question. To make our plan clearer, an illustration may be attempted. When a tourist coming from a well-explored country, suddenly reaches the borderland of a terra incognita, hedged in, and shut out from view by a formidable barrier of impassable rocks, he may still refuse to acknowledge himself baffled in his exploratory plans. Ingress beyond is forbidden. But, if he cannot visit the mysterious region personally, he may still find a means of examining it from as short a distance as can be arrived at. Helped by his knowledge of landscapes left behind him, he can get a general and pretty correct idea of the transmural view, if he will only climb to the loftiest summit of the altitudes in front of him. Once there, he can gaze at it, at his leisure, comparing that which he dimly perceives with that which he has just left below, now that he is, thanks to his efforts, beyond the line of the mists and the cloud-capped cliffs."
  > > .......
  > > "To my judges, past and future, therefore-whether they are serious literary critics, or those howling dervishes in literature who judge a book according to the popularity or unpopularity of the author's name, who, hardly glancing at its contents, fasten like lethal bacilli on the weakest points of the body-I have nothing to say. Nor shall I condescend to notice those crack-brained slanderers-fortunately very few in number-who, hoping to attract public attention by throwing discredit on every writer whose name is better known than their own, foam and bark at their very shadows. These, having first maintained for years that the doctrines taught in the Theosophist, and which culminated in "Esoteric Buddhism," had been all invented by the present writer, have finally turned round, and denounced "Isis Unveiled" and the rest as a plagiarism from Eliphas Lévi (!), Paracelsus (!!), and, mirabile dictu, Buddhism and Brahmanism (!!!) As well charge Renan with having stolen his Vie de Jésus from the Gospels, and Max Müller his "Sacred Books of the East" or his "Chips" from the philosophies of the Brahmins and Gautama, the Buddha. But to the public in general and the readers of the "Secret Doctrine" I may repeat what I have stated all along, and which I now clothe in the words of Montaigne: Gentlemen, "I HAVE HERE MADE ONLY A NOSEGAY OF CULLED FLOWERS, AND HAVE BROUGHT NOTHING OF MY OWN BUT THE STRING THAT TIES THEM."
  > > 
  > > Pull the "string" to pieces and cut it up in shreds, if you will. As for the nosegay of FACTS-you will never be able to make away with these. You can only ignore them, and no more." 
  > > http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume_I.htm
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > M. Sufilight says:
  > > And the fact that various sanskrit and tibetan words given in the Secret Doctrine follow western dictionaries in the time of Blavatasky, can without question be said to have a whole lot to do with the above words. And also with the fact, that in 1888, the times were different. If a nomadic female from Mongolia or Russia came and told various well-esteemed Professors, that all what they did was wrong, the book would not have reached far. Another aspect is, that some of the words given by Blavatsky, were deliberately given a bit incorrect, because they were not meant to be read litterally by scholars, but by the use of the 7 Keys to the Mystery language. This book the Secret Doctrine was and is not written primarily for scholars - but as it is clearly stated by Blavatsky to advanced theosophists and seekers after wisdom. Not beginners and therefore not scholars. - Another problem was that various sanskrit and tibetan words were at that time not easily translateable into western - script and use of Western letters. So Blavatsky chose to use what had been arrived at at the time of her writing. Because the book might have been declared invalid, then or later, if she did not. - Today we find that the age of the book the Secret Doctrine - in one sense - is showing up, and that some of the words in Sanskrit and Tibetan are not quite without error when compared to the present day dictionaries etc. But the few number of faults are tolerable to most - advanced - seekers. At least to those who do not cling to the dead letter - like some scholars do. - Another aspect is that Blavatsky said in a letter to A. P. Sinnett that she spoke more than 40 languages. - Further I find no reason, like David Reigle appearntly neither do, to think that the book named Dzyan Stanzas do not exist. Blavatksy clearly wrote that it was baed on an esoteric version of the Kalachakra Tantra and commentaries to it as well as a glossary or wordbook. (Se BCW, Vol. XIV, p. 422-424 - http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v14/mb_007.htm).
  > > 
  > > If Blavatsky could fool mr. A. O. Hume to write that he believed that she possesed extra sensory perception - I think she was not as stupid as some might consider her to be. A O. Hume was´not a nobody intellectually speaking. And there are several of other evidences which can be documented on her capeabilities and skills, which cannot be brushed away just like that. So to claim that she merely plagiarised the Theosophical Glossary and the Secret Doctrine and so on - is as false a claim as it can be. - Then one could go and say that David Reigle also have plagiarized som parts and passges in his writings himself. Should we just imagine that Blavatsky invented it all and that the article THE SECRET BOOKS OF "LAM-RIM" AND DZYAN is false to the core. When we know that other articles is not, which can be documented.
  > > Also the following: Mr. Eglinton and "Koot Hoomi." - http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/eglinton2.htm --- and --- Mr. Eglinton By Eleanor Mildred Sidgwick. http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/sidgeglin.htm
  > > But I guess there will always be Eglinton's and SPR scholars on this planet. Some persons need to see it before they understand. Smile.
  > > 
  > > Others just brush Dabid Reigle's words away with a minor sigh.
  > > I do not since I have met H. P. Blavatsky when materialized herself in my flat - and also because I have met her when astral travelling.
  > > 
  > > But this does not imply, that she was without faults. But not in the sense pictures by the scholar David Reigle and his strange "Zhentong" Buddhistic leanings.
  > > 
  > > I do as I have said not write at http://theosnet.ning.com - because I disagree with its manner of operating.
  > > Although I agree that some improvements have arrived lately.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > from the heart of the anti-scholar
  > > M. Sufilight
  > > 
  > > [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]