Theos-Talk Archives (January 2012 Message tt00211)

Govert,
Are you able to source information about these people's history prior to their association with Blavatsky?
Cass



>________________________________
> From: Govert Schuller <schuller@0VPOPULR61awm6wMmR_61DGiCVOoIReMgLwj_Go-TaRKwFx0ZFbzQ-pqqIs32Fhc4MCqNn38PQxjVes6vA.yahoo.invalid>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Sunday, 29 January 2012 5:09 AM
>Subject: RE: theos-talk to Govert:  How I Have Grappled with the Claims of Blavatsky, etc.
> 
>
>Â 
>Dear Daniel,
>
>Maybe a more pragmatic word should have been used by me instead of
>'decisive,' which might imply a demand of 100% assuredness. Indeed, nothing
>like that happens, not even in the natural sciences, or even mathematics for
>that matter. 
>
>So, what I'm working with is just this comparative 'method' of switching
>gestalts between a Theosophical view of Theosophy and HPB and a skeptical
>view. I have lived with and explored the Theosophical view, but now I am
>exploring and deepening the other side by taking the issues presented by the
>Coulombs, Hodgson, Meade and Williams serious, not decidedly so, but as a
>hypothesis ranging between the possible and the plausible. And, of course,
>from their perspective Theosophy and HPB all look pretty bad. 
>
>Govert
>
>From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com] On
>Behalf Of Daniel
>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 9:27 PM
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: theos-talk to Govert: How I Have Grappled with the Claims of
>Blavatsky, etc.
>
>Govert,
>
>Thanks for your comments below.
>
>It would be interesting to know exactly what "decisive" means to you.
>
>I have a friend who always tells me that we can never know anything with a
>100 percent therefore how can we ever really know anything and I always
>respond that I don't even know what 100 percent is and how would we ever
>know we had a 100 percent accuracy. Granting the force of all of what i just
>wrote about, we still do not let any of that paralyze us from having to make
>more or less working hypotheses or decisions and constantly acting upon
>them. A method that we constantly use in one form or another is what I call
>the 4 step method of discovery. This method I contend is constantly used by
>us in everyday life, in police work, courts of law, in research on
>historical subjects, scientific research, etc. THis method does not gurantee
>100 percent anything but it is the best method that I can find. If I as a
>historian reconstruct a series of historical events of a very prosaic
>nature, does that mean that my reconstruction of what happened is
>"decisive"? I guess it depends on what you mean by decisive. Certainly I
>would not say that my reconstruction is the "absolute" truth if by absolute
>you mean 100 percent guaranteed. Or if I am on a jury and I must determine
>if a person is guility beyond a "reasonable" doubt for a terrible crime, is
>my conclusion "decisive"? Yet my decision may determine the fate of this
>individual for the rest of his life!!!!!!!
>
>But what is the practical alternative to the above 2 scenarios and similar
>ones?
>
>How decisive can anything be if by that we mean decisive beyond the
>possibility of any error or any doubt......?
>
>For more details on what. i am getting at, see:
>How the Mind Seeks Truth: The 4-Step Process of Discovery
>http://blavatskyarchives.com/4stepprocess.htm
>
>Possibility versus Probability
>http://blavatskyarchives.com/possibleversusprobable.htm
>
>see also:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4423
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/6173
>
>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ,
>"Govert Schuller" <schuller@...> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Daniel,
>> 
>> As you well know there is no decisive methodology to establish the truth
>or
>> falsity of Theosophy. If one is a believer one will find enough anecdotes,
>> circumstantial evidence or personal experiences to validate one's belief.
>If
>> one is a skeptic one will find enough holes and alternate explanations to
>> come to a contrary conclusion. If there were an acceptable methodology we
>> would not have this discussion. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I used to be a believer and thought there was enough convincing evidence
>to
>> support it and that in cases where genuine doubts could be raised, there
>> would be in the end innocent, exculpatory explanations. This changed with
>> sharpening my critical faculties and at a certain moment I had to admit
>that
>> it was well possible that the whole edifice was based on delusion and/or
>> outright fraud. It was a matter of gestalt-switch with the ability to
>> actually change back and forth. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Because there doesn't seem to be any deciding methodology I decided to
>> suspend indefinitely the Theosophical assumptions upon which both my
>> worldview and website were based. For now I'm exploring the idea that
>> Theosophy is like other religions and spiritual movements, i.e. an
>intricate
>> give-and-take between myth-making leaders and myth-believing followers
>> satisfying a still not very well understood socio-psychological need
>shaped
>> by evolutionary pressures. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
>[mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ]
>On
>> Behalf Of Daniel
>> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 1:39 PM
>> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> 
>> Subject: theos-talk to Govert: How I Have Grappled with the Claims of
>> Blavatsky, etc.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Govert, you write:
>> 
>> "It looks like that your position on HPB is a black and white one. Either
>> HPB
>> is a fraud or you have to accept her as valid and true. Nothing in the
>> middle where she might be seen as offering a mixed bag of truths and
>> falsehoods."
>> 
>> My position is not black and white. A middle position is "possible." but
>> then again the black position is also possible as well as the white. but
>> regardless of what possibility you might entertain, what is the evidence
>to
>> support your contention. Plus one has to ask what is the reasoning that
>lead
>> you to interpret the evidence the way you did, etc. etc.
>> 
>> IF you are convinced that HPB was in contact with adepts of a brotherhood,
>> what is the specific evidence that leads you to that conclusion?
>> 
>> So tell us what is in your bag...start with the "truths" and tell us what
>> evidence, etc. leads you to these "truths".
>> 
>> I have no idea what specific evidence you would deem credible and would
>> accept as validating some "truth" about HPB and her claims. 
>> 
>> Do you accept the testimonies of HPB and other persons during her lifetime
>> as to the existence of the masters morya and koot hoomi.
>> 
>> i have compiled much of the material at:
>> 
>> http://blavatskyarchives.com/chelas_on_the_mahatmas.htm
>> 
>> tell us what you conclude from this testimony and evidence. what you
>accept
>> or reject and why?
>> 
>> only by grappling with SPECIFICS can we get to the heart of the matter....
>> 
>> i have no idea how you would grapple and interpret this material.
>> 
>> daniel
>> 
>> From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
>> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ]
>> On
>> 
>> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ,
>> "Govert Schuller" <schuller@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Daniel,
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > It is possible to reconcile, in theory, HPB with any post-HPB claimant
>by
>> > arguing that where they differ they would split the difference by
>> admitting
>> > that both had some untruths and/or mistakes. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > For example, if the Krishnamurti-saga was genuine in the sense that it
>was
>> > backed by the brotherhood, then any statement by HPB in contradiction
>with
>> > that idea would have to be dropped or at least shelved. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > It looks like that your position on HPB is a black and white one. Either
>> HPB
>> > is a fraud or you have to accept her as valid and true. Nothing in the
>> > middle where she might be seen as offering a mixed bag of truths and
>> > falsehoods. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
>> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ]
>> On
>> > Behalf Of Daniel H. Caldwell
>> > Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 10:10 PM
>> > To: theos talk
>> > Cc: danielhcaldwell@
>> > 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]
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4753 - Release Date: 01/19/12
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> [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: 2109/4756 - Release Date: 01/20/12
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 
>
>

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