Theos-Talk Archives (January 2012 Message tt00096)

I could understand this if there was a million dollar cheque at the end of it. ÂBut why spend a lifetime on building something with no rewards, be it, financial or otherwise.
The agenda of a Fraudster would show itself in either qudos or power. ÂHPB received nothing from establishing theosophy in the west but criticism and insult.

Cass



>________________________________
> From: Govert Schuller <schuller@Zfy1yBQmp_yFurW0B8jTE_ghDqKZICyn0aXVriaeo3c14X0bRWQoQGCeOl5Dn33oO49Edtz-b7XPnsY.yahoo.invalid>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Monday, 16 January 2012 5:36 AM
>Subject: RE: theos-talk How I Have Grappled with the Claims of Blavatsky, etc.
> 
>
>Â 
>Thanks for sharing. Always good to hear some biographical background.
>
>"It was obvious at least to me at some point that if HPB was just a fraud
>and her Masters really didn't exist, then obviously LATER claims were also
>fraudulent and illusionary."
>
>Quite so. 
>
>From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com] On
>Behalf Of Daniel H. Caldwell
>Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 10:10 PM
>To: theos talk
>Cc: danielhcaldwell@ozxNYhewMXJyF9ZpUPGOmaNrUL5aAoMQmWHwQpEjY6HphmcZKtTh3X8FCOrczcXIjoYTJ7eu_2bjTXwKgKKqelFN6uw.yahoo.invalid
>Subject: theos-talk How I Have Grappled with the Claims of Blavatsky, etc.
>
>Pablo&#39;s article on the Masters versus the Ascended Masters and
>Govert&#39;s reply, etc. have made me think back to how I first came to
>Theosophy and my subsequent study and research.
>
>I first read about Theosophy through reading books by Annie Besant and C.W.
>Leadbeater. It was only later that I came across THE MAHATMA LETTERS and THE
>SECRET DOCTRINE.
>
>And then upon reading the latter 2 works, I started being quite puzzled by
>what seemed like all sorts of differences between Besant/Leadbeater and The
>Mahatma Letters/Secret Doctrine. I remember I was quite confused by all of
>that. At that point in time I didn&#39;t have a clue as to what was what or
>as to what was going on. I had not heard at that stage that there was a
>"Theosophy" that was supposedly different from "Neo-Theosophy."
>
>Without going into alot of other interesting detail, etc, as time went on I
>found out that there were other people claiming also to be in contact with
>the Theosophical Masters other than HPB, CWL and AB and that most of these
>claims were made after HPB&#39;s death.
>
>Bailey, Prophet, Purucker, Judge, Tingley, Ballard, Chaney, etc. were some
>of these names I first ran across. I learned about more from time to
>time!!!!
>
>And after reading some of the material and books by and about these latter
>named individuals, I was even more confused! Again there seemed to be a
>hodgepodge of claims and teachings. What should I make of it all?
>
>I was at the point of not only being confused but also being somewhat
>skeptical as a result of all the multitude of contradictiory and conflicting
>claims and counterclaims.
>
>Then I noticed that all or almost all of the later claimants were basing
>their claims on what Blavatsky had first claimed. That is, that she was in
>contact with Master KH and M of the Occult Brotherhood.
>
>And many of these claimants more or less said they were following in
>HPB&#39;s footsteps or that they were the newest messenger of the same
>Theosophical Masters, however they might phrase it.
>
>So I wanted to know more about the "fountain source", that is HPB, her life,
>her claims, her work, her writings and her teachings, and also about her
>Teachers.
>
>If she was the one to start the ball rolling, so to speak, then it seemed
>important to go back to the beginning.....what were the original claims,
>teachings, etc. of H.P.B.?
>
>So over many years I took it upon myself to find out more about HPB, her
>life, her claims, her work, her writings, her teachings.
>
>Did her Masters really exist? Or did she just make them up as Richard
>Hodgson&#39;s report asserted. What was the evidence from HPB&#39;s life
>that would help one to decide whether what she claimed was true and that she
>was really in contact with these Masters or whether she was just a charlatan
>or maybe some self-hallucinating psychic or victim of her own subconscious
>mind or a tool of Satan and his demons, etc.
>
>I am by nature a very skeptical person but also I try to be open minded and
>I also try to challenge my own assumptions and thinking.
>
>So I started collecting everything I could on Blavatsky. Writing to this
>scholar or Theosophical writer, this Theosophical Society or that
>Theosophical group, to this library or special collection, etc. etc. 
>
>While I was doing all of that, I was also independently trying to educate
>myself on world religions, mythologies, philosophies, modern day "cults" and
>minority spiritual movements, spiritualism, parapsychology, transpersonal
>pschology, mysticism, magic, ancient civilizations and a whole host of other
>subjects since HPB of course was dealing with all these subjects directly or
>indirectly in all of her writings. How could I understand what she was
>writing about without having more background on the subjects she was dealing
>with, quoting from, etc.?
>
>Moving on....
>
>Could HPB perform psychic phenomena? There was alot of seemingly conflicting
>evidence. What was what? So I studied all of that. 
>
>What evidence was there that her Masters existed? I ignored her own
>testimony and looked for the testimony of people who meet her and knew her
>and claimed they had encountered/met her Teachers. And what did the skeptic
>say about these Masters? etc. etc.
>
>Plus at the same time, by studying all of this testimony about encounters
>with Masters, by also looking at what HPB wrote about her Masters, who they
>were, their nature, etc., one could start to construct from all of this a
>better picture of who these Masters were suppose to be. Plus of course since
>we had at
>least 3 volumes of letters from the Masters KH and M and a few other adepts,
>then what would these letters reveal about the supposed adepts, about what a
>Master is or isn&#39;t, about the Occult Brotherhood supposedly in the
>background, etc.
>
>The same with all of HPB&#39;s writings. What is this Theosophy that she is
>writing about? From a careful reading and studying of all her writings,
>could I come to an understanding and comprehension of this thing called
>Theosophy?
>
>So this is where I have devoted a great deal of my time for many, many
>years.
>
>In summary, I went back to Blavatsky and tried to see what were her claims,
>her teachings, first of all simply to KNOW what they were!
>
>But of course I also wanted to know if what she claimed and taught was true,
>valid etc. etc. or just the result of fraudulent activity, ravings of some
>sincere but deluded kook, etc.
>
>And in my mind at least was the thought that with this foundation, then
>maybe one might be in a somewhat better position to assess and evaluate the
>claims made LATER by Judge, Besant, Leadbeater, Tingley, Purucker, Bailey,
>etc. 
>
>It was obvious at least to me at some point that if HPB was just a fraud and
>her Masters really didn&#39;t exist, then obviously LATER claims were also
>fraudulent and illusionary.
>
>But even if HPB&#39;s claims, etc. were valid and true, then what would or
>should one make of all these later claimants?
>
>Daniel
>http://hpb.cc
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4744 - Release Date: 01/15/12
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 
>
>

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