Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00222)

Hi Perry,
Yes, the devil's advocate role can be a good way to
nut out some important issues.
I think it would be a mistake, though, to take the 
comments in the "psychic versus initiate" article as 
Helena Blavatsky's own personal 'take' on these matters.
It is made very clear that HPB was the most suitable 
vehicle, in the opinion of the Theosophical Adepts, 
through whom THEY could (re)introduce the Ancient 
Wisdom to the western mind.

Again, yes it is important to exercise an open mind 
but hopefully not at the cost of a clear reasoning 
mind where Truth can become the victim.

Geoffrey A. Barborka in 'H.P.Blavatsky Tibet and Tulku'
puts it like this:

"Altogether too many attacks have been made against 
H.P.Blavatsky, villifying her personally. The reason for 
this is so obvious: besmirch the name of the person 
who brought the teachings of the Ancient Wisdom to 
the western world and people will not examine the 
message that she brought. By creating clamor and 
confusion, people will not know which way to turn. 
Where there is sufficient smoke, the flame of Truth 
will be obscured."

Keep up the devil's, I mean, good work Perry!

Regards
Nigel H

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@...> 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>