Re: RE: DEFENCE OF HPB == Esoteric or Exoteric ?
Jan 18, 1999 12:21 PM
by Jerry Schueler
>I ask for proof. You offer me books (that you don't specifically
>list) in bookshops that currently criticize HPB -- her life -
>and her writings. [ Titles and Authors ? ]
Well, I certainly won't waste any more of my time.
>Otherwise the matter is again relegated to opinions.
It will ALWAYS come down to opinions and interpretations,
my friend, because outside of faith, NOTHING EXISTS
that can be "proved" to anyone at all. You can't prove
to me that every word HPB wrote is true and accurate,
nor can I prove it isn't. As far as I am concerned,
even pointing to external objects doesn't "prove" anything
because even external reality is subject to subjective
>As to philosophy, sorry, but any aspect of popular or translated
>and published "Buddhism" does not stand up against the
>fundamental doctrines of Theosophy.
Here I am not sure what you mean. If you mean that HPB is right
and the Buddhists themselves are wrong, then you are so far
to the left that further discussion is wasting everyone's time.
But if you mean that you prefer (Ah yes, this is your opinion!)
HPB to the Buddhists themselves and Theosophy is not
necessarily Buddhism, then we can keep dialoging.
> Again let me say that the
>sources of such opinions or translations ought to be fully given,
>and it ought to be stated clearly exactly what doctrines are
>contradictory, and why.
I am absolutely convinced that you still wouldn't care and
I would have wasted a lot of time. I prefer to point out errors
and discrepancies as I find them, and you can take them
or leave them as you see fit.
>The reason is plain (to me) : Ancient and Immemorial Theosophy
>is their source.
You have only HPB's word on this. I take this kind of stuff with
a grain of salt personally. And we have already pretty well
agreed to use theosophy with a small t to designate the ancient
esoteric wisdom teaching and Theosophy with a capital T to
designate the teachings of HPB and her Masters. The two do
NOT always agree.
>The "Doctrine of the Eye" does not answer the 'Doctrine of the
The one *should* be a limited expression of the other. If not,
then something is wrong.
> I recognize
>many may not agree with that. However, that does not do away
>with the "Heart doctrine."
Tibetan Buddhism does distinquish between these two.
>As to defence, -- you are free to take your path, and I, mine.
>But if I see criticism of HPB I will ask for chapter and verse
>proofs. I consider that a "dharma."
Yes, but you will not see the proof when it is put before you
because your mind is too narrow. Besides Dallas, all of
the "errors" and inconsistencies that I have noted on this
list are very minor compared to the vast amount of material
Blavatsky gave out. You like to quibble over small points.
I have already stated that the sex-related material is an
opinion of mine. I simply do not believe that chastity is
necessary to tread the Path. Dr Bain doesn't believe in
reincarnation. Does this make him a poor Theosophist?
We all have to pick and choose for ourselves. If you pick
all of it without exception, then fine but please don't ask
everyone else to do that (because you set yourself up
for a great fall some day).
>Where are yours ? I mean specifics, and real proofs, not
>generalities, or 2nd and 3rd level opinions ?.
I have no idea what this means, but you need to get off
your "proof" kick which is a rediculous position for a
Theosophist to be in (no religion higher than truth so
long as it agrees with Blavaksy and Judge, was not the
intent of either).
>Just recently Sylvia Cranston based on
>documentary evidence. Since then I have seen nothing new issued
>that has been additional to earlier allegations - settled by
>source evidence given in that book. Have you ?
The problem with history is that it too is subject to a great
deal of interpretation. If you want to think that all is rosy and
that Blavatsky is now vindicated in every way, then fine. You
are free to do so.
>I would also observe (in my own self-reviewed esteem, of course)
>that my adherence to "Theosophy" as a philosophy, and my respect
>for HPB, as the "Messenger" of the Masters of Wisdom, is based on
>my understanding of Their philosophy.
I certainly hope so. But can you accept that mine is too?
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application