Re: Theos-World Is Blavatsky saying CONTRADICTORY things?
Mar 04, 2007 05:21 PM
by Cass Silva
Perhaps I have had too much vino on the weekend and I am not thinking clearly, but I cannot see a contradiction anywhere. All are stating the same thing that Orthodoxy is not part of theosophical truths. Those theosophical students that practice orthodoxy are distorting the truth with their own flowerly version.
danielhcaldwell <email@example.com> wrote:
Concerning the two extracts you gave from Mme. Blavatsky,
I ask you how you would reconcile what Blavatsky says
in those 2 extracts (which I have numbered as EXTRACTS
1 and 2 below) with the additional 5 extracts I also
give below from Blavatsky and Koot Hoomi.
Is Blavatsky saying CONTRADICTORY things in EXTRACTS 1
and 2 when you COMPARE them with EXTRACTS 3 thru 7?
Or are we comparing apples to oranges when looking at
the meaning or various meanings of the 7 extracts?
Or should we view all of these extracts from some other
It seems to me that on one hand that we should avoid setting
up "dogmas" but to go to the other extreme of letting any
vagary be called Theosophy or Theosophical is also not
I also call your attention to the three words WITHIN
CERTAIN LIMITS in EXTRACT 2. Do these three words
qualify the meaning of the extract overall? And if so,
"We are all fellow-students, more or less advanced;
but no one belonging to the Theosophical Society
ought to count himself as more than, at best, a
pupil-teacher?one who has no right to dogmatize."
(Letter to the Second American Convention, 1888)
"Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither possible
nor desirable. It is diversity of opinion, WITHIN
CERTAIN LIMITS, that keeps the Theosophical Society
a living and a healthy body, its many other
ugly features notwithstanding. Were it not, also,
for the existence of a large amount of uncertainty
in the minds of students of Theosophy, such healthy
divergencies would be impossible, and the Society
would degenerate into a sect, in which a narrow and
stereotyped creed would take the place of the living
and breathing spirit of Truth and an ever growing
Knowledge." (same source as above)caps ADDED.
". . . A new and rapidly growing danger. . . is threatening . . . the
spread of the pure Esoteric Philosophy and knowledge. . . . I
allude to those charlatanesque imitations of Occultism and
Theosophy. . . . By pandering to the prejudices of people, and
especially by adopting the false ideas of a personal God and a
personal, carnalized Saviour, as the groundwork of their teaching,
the leaders of this 'swindle' (for such it is) are endeavoring to
draw men to them and in particular to turn Theosophists from the true
". . . A close examination will assuredly reveal. . . materials
largely stolen . . . from Theosophical writings. . . [and] distorted
and falsified so as to be palmed off on the unwary as revelations of
new and undreamed of truths. But many will neither have the time nor
the opportunity for such a thorough investigation; and before they
become aware of the imposture they may be led far from the
Truth. . . . Nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the
garbled and distorted versions disfigured to suit the prejudices and
tastes of men in general."
H. P. Blavatsky, E.S. Instruction No. I., 1889.
"I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by
Mr. H[ume]. I read his three essays or chapters on God (?) cosmogony
and glimpses of the origin of things in general, and had to cross out
nearly all. He makes of us Agnostics!! We do not believe in God
because so far, we have no proof, etc. This is preposterously
ridiculous: if he publishes what I read, I will have H.P.B. or Djual
Khool deny the whole thing; as I cannot permit our sacred philosophy
to be so disfigured. He says that people will not accept the whole
truth; that unless we humour them with a hope that there may be
a 'loving Father and creator of all in heaven' our philosophy will be
rejected a priori. In such a case the less such idiots hear of our
doctrines the better for both. If they do not want the whole truth
and nothing but the truth, they are welcome. But never will they find
us -- (at any rate) -- compromising with, and pandering to public
Master Koot Hoomi, The Mahatma Letters, 2nd ed., Letter 54
". . . You have heard of and read about a good many Seers, in the
past and present centuries, such as Swedenborg, Boehme, and others.
Not one among the number but thoroughly honest, sincere, and as
intelligent, as well educated; aye, even learned. Each of them in
addition to these qualities, has or had . . . a 'Guardian' and a
Revelator -- under whatever 'mystery' and 'mystic name' -- whose
mission it is -- or has been to spin out to his spiritual ward -- a
new system embracing all the details of the world of Spirit. Tell me,
my friend, do you know of two that agree? And why, since truth is
one, and that putting entirely the question of discrepancies in
details aside -- we do not find them agreeing even upon the most
vital problems -- those that have either 'to be, or not to be' -- and
of which there can be no two solutions?"
Master Koot Hoomi, The Mahatma Letters, 2nd ed., Letter 48
"Our doctrine knows no compromises. It
either affirms or denies, for it never
teaches but that which it knows to be
The Mahatma Letters, 2nd ed., Letter 10
"Esoteric Buddhism" [by A.P. Sinnett] . . . is
an excellent book [on Theosophy], and has done
still more excellent work. But this does not alter
the fact that it contains some mistaken notions. . . ."
"The time has arrived for the explanation of some
matters in this direction."
"Mistakes have now to be checked by the ORIGINAL
teachings and CORRECTED. . . ."
H.P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Vol. I caps added
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application