Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00237)

They were great enough for me Perry, any greater, and I would have been in the land of whaaatttttttt?
   
  Cass

plcoles1 <plcoles1@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
          Hi Nigel H,
You wrote :

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.

It may well be but for me it is anticle of faith rather than fact.
IMO it is problematic to accept this as established fact.
Even if HPB did get the teachings from humans who claim to be Adepts, 
it is still a leap of faith to accept their claims of being the 
highest adepts.

Cheers

Perry

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nigel_healy" <nigelhealy@...> 
wrote:
>
> 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



                         

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

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