Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00139)

Netemara: I mean how could some concocted stories about a Russian 
woman with the soul of gypsy and a soft spot for poor regular folks, and 
no money to speak of affect the whole Western world? It was just not 
supposed to happen if you think about it.

I don't see what you wrote provided any evidence (other then polemics) 
that the "Mahatma Letters" contain anything else (more or new)
then the information available to Blavatsky and friends, their normal 
human (not sages in the Himalalaya, there is NO evidence Blavatsky ever 
was in Tibet) studies in Rosicrucianism, Masonry, spiritism, and a wide 
readiing in religion, history, Philosophy and the science of their day ?
I went over this already on this list, but never received an answer.

See also: http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9/invoccultism.html

And: http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9/esosecrets.html

And: http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9/austr2.html

Look forward to your detailed response to the above ,and pls include 
referrences.
Brian
http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9

--- In theos-talk@y..., "netemara888" <netemara888@y...> wrote:
> Well said wry1111.
> 
> Brian was on my group for a while and I addressed this issue but not 
> directly. The message and the books and the outer trappings of 
> mysterious masters of a cult one could call: "made in India" suitable 
> for export to the West, is NOT what is important. What is important 
> is that this movement made a whole in the glamorized view of human 
> history and she (TS) did it in a way that it has never been done 
> before. That is what makes people mad I suspect. She was NOT 
supposed 
> to be successful--don't you see? It was not supposed to work. It was 
> not supposed to happen. But it was destined to work. It was destined 
> to change the world. And dear Brian you can't change that with all 
> the capitalized essays in the world!!!
> 
> I mean how could some concocted stories about a Russian woman 
with 
> the soul of gypsy and a soft spot for poor regular folks, and no 
> money to speak of affect the whole Western world? It was just not 
> supposed to happen if you think about it.
> 
> I think it's funny like wry said. I try to roll back the covers, the 
> burkas. But many don't think its funny.
> 
> Netemara
> 
> **************
> 
> -- In theos-talk@y..., "wry" <wry1111@e...> wrote:
> > Hi Brian. You seem to me like an interesting and intelligent person 
> in many
> > ways, but in the way you are approaching this topic, I believe you 
> could use
> > a little more discrimination. People will believe in all kinds of 
> things.
> > They will often do this seemingly arbitrarily, but behind this, of 
> course,
> > is a dynamic. Unless you come to understand the dynamic, you will
> > perpetually be pouring from the empty into the void. Is this how 
> you want to
> > live your life? Is this sensible or meaningful? Think this over.
> > 
> > As people, we are suggestible. There is a tendency to eternalize 
> situations
> > and to want to believe this or that. There is a somewhat grave 
> situation,
> > both politically and environmentally, on the planet earth, would 
> you not
> > agree, but most people ARBITRARY believe they do not need to 
> address this
> > problem "till tomorrow." Is this not true? I do this myself. You 
> probably
> > do, too.
> > 
> > Rule #1: Do not try to take anything away from someone unless you 
> are able
> > to help them find something better to replace it with. You think 
> you have
> > something better, reality and common sense, and I would agree, it 
> probably
> > is better, but telling this is not enough. You need to SHOW it. You 
> do not
> > say, "trust me. There is a reality which is better. Give up your 
> belief and
> > then it will be there." This is what the wolf says to the chicken 
> before he
> > eats it. No one will listen, and they should not, as to them, IT 
> MAKES NO
> > SENSE, even though it does make sense to you.
> > 
> > I do not care if Madame Blavatsky tricked people. If she did, I 
> think it is
> > funny. Why do you care? HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO FIND OUT? 
The 
> point I
> > personally would be interested in making is that it is not 
> necessary to
> > look back. You would think this is a point everyone of us 
> understands, but
> > we don't. Even I am looking back on irrelevant details the moment 
> before I
> > bump into a telephone pole.
> > 
> > Yes, there are many more Mormons than Theosophists. This is the 
> fastest
> > growing religion on the planet earth. Joseph Smith did not need to 
> provide
> > evidence of a certain nature, not does any one who is interested in
> > attracting a bunch of believers. You do not need to have evidence to
> > believe. What is your point? I suspect you are angry. Would you be 
> angry at
> > a five year old for believing in the Easter bunny? I am not being 
> sarcastic
> > when I say that this principle is very hard to understand,when 
> applied to
> > adults, but it is not only valid but of prime importance. If you 
> and I
> > understand this (and I am still struggling to understand and apply 
> this in
> > my everyday life), we can turn our intelligence and energy to 
> projects that
> > have more of a likelihood of succeeding, and in this way, maybe we 
> can help
> > many people. Sincerely, Wry
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "brianmuehlbach" <brianmuehlbach@y...>
> > To: <theos-talk@y...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:20 AM
> > Subject: Theos-World The "sources" of the letters, and 
> the "staging" of
> > Blavatsky's "Masters."
> > 
> > 
> > > Wry: Joseph Smith, or whatever his name was, found the Book
> > > of Mormon on tablets of pure gold which he dug up in the 
ground. 
> To
> > > me this is ridiculous.
> > >
> > > Brian: There are indeed many more believing Mormons then 
people
> > > believe the "Mahatma Letters" have been created out of tin air, 
> as Daniel
> > > Caldwell and Dallas/Dalval keep suggesting.
> > >
> > > Like Smith and the Golden Tablets, Blavatsky did not provide
> > > documentary or other real evidence for her sources. Including 
> that there
> > > are no reliable reports of someone for example having seen any 
> of the
> > > so called "Mahatmas" while writing any of these letters.
> > >
> > > Instead we do have reports like that Hume and Sinnett at first 
> didn`t feel
> > > that the letters met with the standards of a Master. In the place 
> of
> > > answers to their metaphysical questions they received constant
> > > injunctions to be kind and understanding to HPB. "You can hardly 
> be too
> > > indulgent with her," Mahatma Koot Hoomi told them, and for a 
while
> > > they obeyed him.
> > >
> > > The Mahatma Letters played with notions of their own 
> fictitiousness in
> > > sophisticated ways, calling attention to the Mahatmas` status as
> > > inventive inventions: having been "`invented` ourselves," the 
> Masters
> > > noted, they "repay the inventors by inventing" increasingly
> > > complicated "imaginary" doctrines as a way of avoiding 
> accusations of
> > > inconsistency or internal contradiction in their teachings. (KH 
> to Sinnet,
> > > Letter No. 24B)
> > >
> > > Distressed by Blavatskys intermediary role in the communications, 
> Hume
> > > and Sinnet decided to send a letter to the "Maha Chohan," another
> > > Master, asking to correspond directly without the meddling hand 
of
> > > Blavatsky. Giving the sealed letter to Blavatsky for forwarding 
> as usual.
> > > She retired to her room with it, supposedly intending to play the 
> piano
> > > while magically precipitating the envelope to its destination, 
> but a very
> > > different kind of music was heard from the room a few minutes 
> later,
> > > when she emerged screaming betrayal and treason, having 
opened the
> > > letter and read it.
> > >
> > > See also: http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9/mhoax.html
> > >
> > >
> > Brian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >