Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00215)

So true Perry, we could study any of the sources you mentioned.  However, Blavatsky, was able to present it to the western mind.  Other than Sufism, I found great difficulty with the others as their terminology requires a deep understanding of their philosophy.  HPB was able to reconcile this for the western mind, without having to spend eons of time, learning the language.  One only has to look at the upsurge in Kabbalistic teachings since Madonna took an interest.  I studied Krishnamurti advaitaism, which did not suit my personality, but from what I can gather all these sources are sythesized through HPB.  HPB told us explicitly that she was simply the messenger and that her teachings were based on the ancient wisdom.
   
  Cheers
  Cass

plcoles1 <plcoles1@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
          Dear Nigel,
Thanks for your response, first of all I must say that to some extent 
I am playing the devil's advocate here, each group tends to think its 
take and presentation of things is coming from the highest source and 
is the most accurate.

The theosophical approach is one of comparison and self inquiry that 
we hope will lead to our own experience of gnosis or Self Realisation 
or whatever we want to call it.

My comments were mainly in response to this article :
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/psychicversusinitiate.htm

We need not study Blavatsky in order to study the Ancient Wisdom we 
could for example study the various schools of Buddhism, 
Sufism ,Vedanta and Kabbalah etc which ultimately also came from 
seers and by looking with the right motivation we can come to 
enlightenment without ever having read or heard of Blavatsky.

The trap to me is getting into a mindset that only Blavatsky's 
writings are theosophy and imo they should not be used as a final 
arbiter between what is and isn't reliable seership.

Regards
Perry

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nigel_healy" <nigelhealy@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hi Perry,
> I hope you are keeping well. I thought my previous telepathic 
posting 
> may have only reached those few sensitive enough - so I'll stick to 
> good old fashioned words this time!
> 
> I agree with your point about needing to "read different teachings 
on 
> their own and make my own judgement" so as not to get stuck in a 
> blind belief / follower mindset. This is integral to the Theosophic 
> approach. I would say that this is the crux of Mme. Blavatskys 
teachings 
> infact, far from needing "the little Blavatsky tick of approval" - 
simply a 
> profound body of esoteric teachings put forward for our 
consideration. 
> 
> Sri Madhana Ashish said: 
> "The key to true recognition lies in the heart, for when we turn 
our search 
> inwards, seeking the root of certainty within ourselves, then, even 
before 
> we begin to find, we discover an ability to recognize in another 
the true 
> actualization of what we are seeking .... the ability to recognize 
a Master 
> of the Secret Wisdom depends not on any particular quality of his 
but on 
> what we are in ourselves."
> (taken from S.S. Varma "Teachings on Discipleship")
> 
> I am interested to know, however, who some of these other seers may 
be, 
> who you are suggesting have knowledge and information or an 
approach to 
> the Spiritual Path, comparable with the Theosophical writings such 
as :
> The Secret Doctrine, The Voice of the Silence, Isis Unveiled, 
Esoteric 
> Instructions and the complete Collected Writings etc. and not to 
forget the 
> very obviously (to anyone with an esoteric particle in their body - 
and 
> considering the enormous amount of historical documentation 
concerning 
> the manifestation (precipitation) and nature of these letters, e.g. 
Franz 
> Hartmann discovering a letter in his pincer drawer, containing the 
answers 
> to difficult questions he had posed less than four minutes 
earlier!) profound 
> Ancient Wisdom contained in the Mahatma Letters.
> 
> I wonder if perhaps you are overcompensating for this blind belief 
mental 
> structure we humans are so prone towards. After all Truth is Truth, 
whether 
> coming from "one writer" or one hundred writers. Yes there are many 
different 
> teachings, different versions and systems but most of them share a 
common 
> denominator, which is to let go of the self. One of my favourite 
passages from 
> the Voice is: "And now thy Self is lost in SELF, thyself unto 
THYSELF, merged in 
> THAT SELF from which thou first didst radiate." This is, as I 
said, a common 
> theme in many traditions but seldom put quite so poetically and as 
stirring as it 
> is in the original Theosophical writings - and not a hint of fear 
or 'Thou Shalt' to 
> be found!
> 
> With regards to your comments about the "alleged Mahatmas" there is 
much that 
> could be said, but I will quote a well known portion of The Key To 
Theosophy:
> 
> "To say that she has invented the Masters comes to this: She must 
have invented 
> every bit of philosophy that has ever been given out in 
Theosophical literature. 
> She must be the author of the letters from which "Esoteric 
Buddhism" was written; 
> the sole inventor of every tenet found in the "Secret Doctrine," 
which, if the world 
> were just, would be recognised as supplying many of the missing 
links of science, 
> as will be discovered a hundred years hence. By saying what they 
do, they are also 
> giving her the credit of being far cleverer than the hundreds of 
men, (many very 
> clever and not a few scientific men,) who believe in what she says -
inasmuch as 
> she must have fooled them all! If they speak the truth, then she 
must be several 
> Mahatmas rolled into one like a nest of Chinese boxes"
> 
> The 'proof' of the Mahatmas, to me, lies in their profound 
writings - the question 
> of the existence of such beings can be approached a priori, in an 
objective but 
> critical manner.
> 
> Take care,
> 
> Nigel H
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nigel,
> > It makes sense that visions and revelations must be taken with a 
> > pinch of salt as each person's predispositions colour what is 
seen.
> > 
> > The assessments here quoted are all taken from one source 
however, 
> > that being Blavatsky and the alleged Mahatmas (I say alleged as 
in my 
> > opinion it is an act of faith to believe they exist if we have 
never 
> > met them and then also have personally confirmed for ourselves 
the 
> > accurateness of their visions)
> > 
> > It seems to me that while the visions of those mentioned may not 
have 
> > been 100% accurate, we therefore cannot conclude that Blavatsky 
or 
> > her Mahatmas observations are any more accurate or reliable and 
> > simply discard the other teachings as being pure nonsense and 
> > delusion.
> > 
> > Until we can have our own experience direct we can only speculate 
on 
> > who may be or may not be closer to the reality.
> > 
> > Blavatsky's teachings maybe equally as off the mark as the others 
or 
> > indeed the others may have come closer to the reality than she 
did.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Perry
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/psychicversusinitiate.htm
> > >
> >
>



                         

       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

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