Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00050)

Hi Wry,

There is record of Blavatsky actually teaching people face to face, 
orally, etc. But she also wrote books. It seems to me you are blaming 
her for writing books. 
> WRY: You are missing the point entirely. Obviously these were 
designed for
> two different purposes. What you do not seem to understand is that 
#1: all
> of us start out as the common man and #2: obviously you do not, 
cannot, and
> will not believe this, but, though knowledge of a certain kind can 
be
> transmitted in the way she attempts to, other knowledge cannot be 
given in
> this way. It can only be SHOWN. It needs to enter the functioning 
of the
> receiver in a certain balanced configuration that has something to 
do with
> subtleties in timing. When this is not done, and it is NOT, people 
can get
> stuck (MESMERIZED) on one aspect and this is what has happened. 
We can get
> past it, but you do not want to look at this. You cannot. You are 
stuck in a
> mode of contemplation that is not GENERATIVE. That is the way this 
teaching
> is set up. I am really sorry about this, but I have had nothing to 
do with
> it. This is not to say that there is no value in her teaching and 
that no
> good can come out of it.
How on earth can you judge where his mind is at???? Are you claiming 
to be an advanced clairvoyant? 
> 
> The stuff you have said about Mahayana Buddhism, which I just now 
read,
> having somehow missed it, is way offf the mark. The aim of Mahayana
> Buddhism is NOT the kind of static contemplation you are talking 
about as a
> realization of the zero point or whatever. You do not understand. I 
have
> experienced the deep contemplation of this zero point as have 
countless
> others. Go past. Go past. Theosophy is NOT the middle way, nor is 
the middle
> way the contemplation of a zero point. There is something else.
You don't yet know theosophy - so don't judge it. 
> You will not be able to help other human beings until you 
understand the
> secrets of certain interactions that can occur between the physical 
body and
> the outside world. As above, so below. It is not about 
contemplation. This
> is not the secret of what being fully alive is about. The middle 
way is
> about the establishment of Sangha or spiritual community. 
Classically, this
> term refers to the community which establishes and maintains a 
religion, but
> Sangha is also a symbol for something else. Unfortunately, the 
inner-meaning
> can probably not be understood or transmitted without the 
participation in
> some kind of Sangha or other. When I speak about establishing a 
certain kind
> of community, I am not speaking about establishing a religion. A 
certain
> atmosphere needs to be created and maintained by group 
participation, in
> which every member of the group works for the good of himself, 
every other
> member, and the group as a whole. Until this happens, the inner 
meaning of
> Sangha cannot be communicated. More about this later.
This is what H.P. Blavatsky tried to create, I think, but she did not 
succeed - indeed. She was the first to admit that, I think (though 
perhaps it would be fairer to say: she quit her body, which given her 
track record of miraculous healing was sort of a way of saying: this 
isn't working well enough, I give up.) But then, nobody is able to 
create a sanga on their own. The people around her weren't ready - 
so, does that disqualify her as a teacher? 
> >
> > Please understand that the SD was not designed to be a "spiritual
> teaching,"
> > nor a yoga or religious practice, for the "common man." The Voice 
of the
> > Silence is sufficient for that -- as is the spiritual teachings 
of one's
> > chosen religion. Theosophy is perfectly compatible with the idea 
of
> > theosophists being members of any religion -- since all religions 
have the
> > same spiritual, moral and ethical basis. But, the SD is a 
special case
> (even
> > as compared to HPB's other writings on both occult metaphysics as 
well as
> > spiritual ideas). So, it is not the "Bible" of theosophy. It 
was written
> > solely as a textbook or reference for those seeking to understand 
the
> deepest
> > meanings of the metaphysical basis upon which all those religions 
rest
> 
> WRY: I will read The Voice of Silence, but no matter, as you will 
not
> understand it this way. The teaching is always oral. You cannot get 
it from
> a book. Certain books can give the tools to decipher, but they are 
always
> written for the common man, as the man who does not understand 
certain
> material, no matter how intellectually sophisticated or even kind 
hearted,
> is always common if he is ignorant, which he is, if he does not 
understand
> the material.
You don't think there is a difference between people in their ability 
to understand certain things? You yourself have claimed to be the 
only one capable of understanding both theosophy and Krishnamurti 
(and I suppose Tibetan Buddhism) well enough to do something special, 
get some special kind of insight - which indicates that there are at 
least three levels in your mind: the rest of us, you, your master. 
What I suppose you can't conceive of is that HPB's work wasn't meant 
for you - either because you are not ready, or because, like 
Krishnamurti, you are already beyond it. As for the rest of humanity, 
I don't think you are spiritually ready to be able to judge about 
that. 
> >It
> > is, therefore, a textbook of metaphysical science and the 
philosophy of
> > religions -- but not a "religion" or a teaching designed to give 
someone a
> > transcendent "feeling of spirituality." It was designed solely 
to expand
> on
> > the comparative religion studies in Isis Unveiled
> 
> WRY: I have this book and will refer to it next, if I get the time.
Well, you will only be convinced of Blavatsky's inability to express 
her thoughts well. It is even more chaotic than The Secret Doctrine. 
If you want something written from one clear perspective, with one 
message, a logical build up etc. Turn to The Key to Theosophy or The 
Voice of the Silence, or any of her online articles. Isis and the SD 
are indeed weird, unstraightforward. The Secret Doctrine is the well-
organized one of the two. I think there was a good reason for that, 
you don't, but the basic fact is quite simply correct. 

Katinka Hesselink