Re: Theos-World Digest Number 1086
Jun 08, 2003 09:18 AM
by Diana W
Hello Group!
I just joined, and am looking forward to reading and interacting. I have
only been aware of theosophy for about one year, but I really do feel it,
enjoy it. I will just lurk here for now, and join in when the time is
right...
d.w.
After all, we are not striving to reach a destination; the journey itself is
our goal, and the path begins with a single step.
----Original Message Follows----
From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Digest Number 1086
Date: 8 Jun 2003 14:01:32 -0000
There are 18 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. RE: [bn-study] RE: Introduction with editorial comment
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
2. re "RE: [bn-study] RE: Introduction with editorial comment"
From: Mauri <mhart@idirect.ca>
3. HPB: "You hardly dare to say booh in it, for fear it should look
like polemics."
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
4. Re: re "n/Monad" and HPB
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
5. Re: Annie Besant's and C.W. Leadbeater's Theosophical
Contributions.
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
6. Re: re real/apparent differences of opinion re Theosophy
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
7. Re: new member info
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
8. Two Important Reprints on H.P. Blavatsky & H.S. Olcott
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
9. Reprint of 3 volumes of ULT's "Theosophy Magazine"
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
10. Letters of W.Q. Judge to H.S. Olcott (1877-1884)
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
11. re ULT and G. de P.
From: Mauri <mhart@idirect.ca>
12. The ULT /Theosophy Company on G. de P.
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
13. A BETTER LINK to: The ULT /Theosophy Company on G. de P.
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
14. Here is a working link!!!
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
15. Re: re ULT and G. de P.
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
16. RE: re ULT and G. de P.
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
17. Re: No. 1/2 - HPB: "You hardly dare to say booh..."
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
18. Re: No. 2/2 - HPB: "You hardly dare to say booh..."
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 03:53:43 -0700
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: [bn-study] RE: Introduction with editorial comment
Saturday, June 07, 2003
Dear Fay:
Thank you for your inquiry. I am sure that any question you ask
or view you express will be of interest to readers and will
surely be answered.
In the meantime here is a review of the coverage that Theosophy
gives us.
---------------------------------------
WHAT IS THEOSOPHY ?
Since this question in one way or another, has been frequently
asked, here is a summary, a set of SEED statements of the chief
items of Theosophical Wisdom. As further question may arise, if
they are posted to the Site, further explanations can be
presented.
"All of it (Theosophy) can be demonstrated to be wisdom based
on Law...it is "a great body of philosophical, scientific and
ethical doctrine, forming the basis and origin of all similar
thought...It is known as the "Wisdom Religion." It was "always
taught by Adepts or Initiates, who preserve it through all time."
It forms the "root" of all known religions.
These great Men, Masters of Wisdom, are also known as the
Brothers and the Adepts. They are the flowers of the human
race. They form an ancient brotherhood "concerned with the soul
development of man." And, this includes every process of
evolution on all planes. They hold that humanity, as an
intelligent "Ray" of the Great and universal UNKNOWN, is capable
of infinite perfection. This Adept Brotherhood resides on Earth,
but is generally unknown.
Mme. Blavatsky declared she was their "Messenger."
The foundation teachings of Theosophy rest on the UNKNOWN
Principle, concerning which, nothing is definable, yet it is the
universal substratum of all.
It IS, and is IN all THINGS and BEINGS....The whole universe is
alive and active in seven ways and on seven planes, all these are
cooperative and interactive. Spirit is its highest aspect in
manifestation. Matter is the pole opposite to Spirit, but has the
same origin. The UNKNOWN envelops them equally. Mind surveys
them equally from a point of balance between them.
The Spirit focalizes itself in those human beings who "permit it
to do so." "The refusal to permit it to do so is the cause of
all sin, suffering and sorrow"....
The perfectibility of mankind constantly provides the
Brotherhood with new members, and as such they assist nature,
widen and deepen their consciousness, and take on the
responsibilities of their influence for good in the harmonious,
just and fair government of all... "This offers a sublime concept
of aim, and purpose for living. It agrees with the basic
yearnings of the soul, and it destroys pessimism and despair."
Man is a Conscious Spirit, and in him are conjoined Spirit,
Matter and Mind. His responsibility when he ascends to the human
stage, is to assist "matter" in spiritualizing and purifying
itself. Man perfected, becomes the conscious vehicle of Spirit.
To do this, man comes into "touch with all planes of nature."
The 7 principles of man as described,[Spirit, Wisdom, Mind,
Desire, Life, Astral form, and physical body] show that the
divine man or INDIVIDUALITY is a trinity, a thinker. It lives
life after life in a 4-fold "personality." It passes from
"house" to "house" by the process of reincarnation, and in those
embodiments it enjoys or suffers according to its deeds, chosen
by it in the past. The "Personality" or temporary "mask"
(persona) changes from life to life according to the choices
freely made by each "thinker.
Karma is the process instituted by Nature to harmonize choice
with the effects of choice. No mind-man can escape the effects
of his or her choice.
The spiritually conscious man is immortal, and has always
existed.. In him is embodied this universally just and fair law
of cause and effect. He is Karma. In one life he is known as a
personality, but in the stretch of eternity he is one Individual,
independent of name, form, or recollection." The Individual is
also called the Monad.
"Each man's life and character are the outcome of his previous
lives and thoughts. Each is his own judge, his own
executioner...each, by his own life reaches his reward, rises to
the heights of knowledge...and power of good for all"
Nothing is left to chance, or partiality, but all is under the
governance of law....His own spirit is the essence of this LAW.
Right ethics are ever the same: Universal Brotherhood.
---------------------------------
Additional sources for Theosophical teachings are:
H.P.Blavatsky : The KEY TO THEOSOPHY (HPB)
H.P.Blavatsky : The SECRET DOCTRINE
H.P.Blavatsky : ISIS UNVEILED
H.P.Blavatsky : The VOICE OF THE SILENCE
H.P.Blavatsky : ARTICLES (reprinted in )
13 Vols. of Blavatsky: COLLECTED WORKS (Pub.: T P H)
3 Vols. of Blavatsky: COLLECTED ARTICLES
A MODERN PANARION
FIVE YEARS OF THEOSOPHY
(Pub.: The UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS)
Most of these are ON LINE at BLAVATSKY NET --
http://www.blavatsky.net
=============================
Best wishes, and glad to welcome you,
Dallas
====================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Fay.
Sent: 05 June 2003 23:53
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] RE: Introduction with editorial comment
CUT
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 08:36:28 -0400
From: Mauri <mhart@idirect.ca>
Subject: re "RE: [bn-study] RE: Introduction with editorial comment"
re "RE: Introduction with editorial comment >>
I don't know what Gerald would say to that post
from you, Dallas, but I couldn't find anything
"seriously wrong with it" (not that ...), from my
speculative perspective, and the words "not bad"
sort of knocked on my door.
<<The spiritually conscious man is immortal, and
has always existed.. In him is embodied this
universally just and fair law of cause and effect. He
is Karma. In one life he is known as a personality,
but in the stretch of eternity he is one Individual,
independent of name, form, or recollection." The
Individual is also called the Monad. >>
You even qualified "immortal" there somewhat!
<<These great Men, Masters of Wisdom, are also
known as the Brothers and the Adepts. They are
the flowers of the human race. They form an
ancient brotherhood "concerned with the soul
development of man." And, this includes every
process of evolution on all planes. They hold that
humanity, as an intelligent "Ray" of the Great and
universal UNKNOWN, is capable of infinite
perfection. This Adept Brotherhood resides on
Earth, but is generally unknown.>>
One might think that "Adeptship" might be kind of
like an exclusive old boys club, where no women are
allowed to sneak in, any which way?
Speculatively,
Mauri
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 12:47:06 -0000
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
Subject: HPB: "You hardly dare to say booh in it, for fear it should look
like polemics."
po·lem·ic
Etymology: French polémique, from Middle French, from
polemique controversial, from Greek polemikos warlike,
hostile, from polemos war
1 a : an aggressive attack on or refutation of the
opinions or principles of another b : the art or
practice of disputation or controversy -- usually used
in plural but sing. or plural in constr.
2 : an aggressive controversialist : DISPUTANT
-------------------------------------------------------
The very month (Sept. 1887) H.P. Blavatsky founded her
magazine LUCIFER in London, she wrote to W.Q. Judge
about the differences between THE PATH and her new
magazine:
"If I thought for one moment that 'Lucifer' will 'rub
out' Path I would never consent to be its editor. Now
listen to me my good old friend: Once that the Masters
have proclaimed your 'Path' the best the most
theosophical of all theosophical publications — surely
it is not to allow it to be rubbed out!! I know what I
am saying & doing, my 'commanding genius' not
withstanding. To prove this — (which will be proven to
you by the first number of Lucifer when you see its
polemical contents) I will write every month regularly
for "Path" occult, transcendental & theosophical
articles. I give you my word of honour of HPB. I will
force people to subscribe for Path & this will never
hurt 'Lucifer.' One is the fighting, combative Manas —
the other (Path) is pure Buddhi. Can't both be united
in an offensive & defensive alliance in one rupa or
Sthula Sarira — theosophy? Lucifer will be Theosophy
militant — 'Path' the shining light, the Star of
Peace. If your intuition does not whisper to you — it
is so: then that intuition must be wool-gathering. No
Sir; the 'Path' is too well, too theosophically edited
for me to interfere. I am not born for meek &
conciliating literature!" Quoted from:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/hpbwqj0987.htm
Notice some of the key phrases in HPB's letter:
"polemical contents" of LUCIFER
LUCIFER is to be "the fighting, combative Manas."
"Lucifer will be Theosophy militant"
"I am not born for meek & conciliating literature!"
Almost two years later, HPB felt the need to write to
Judge again urging him to found a new journal
different from THE PATH:
". . . What you need in America is a Weekly if not a
fighting daily. Path is a 'lamb-Job' an ever meek
Jeremiah, as is our Revue Theosophique in Paris. You
hardly dare to say booh in it, for fear it should look
like polemics. If, profiting by the occasion, you
should address every Theosophist & Esotericist and
have Buck & a few others to help you — and
representing them the truth, namely that Theosophy
cannot triumph so long as every paper pitches into it
and none will print an answer, collect money enough to
publish a weekly, a theosophical pucka fighting paper
'the Champion' or the 'Wrangler', or some such thing &
set Fullerton as nominal editor & you the real Boss,
then we could get on. Now Mrs. Candler. . . will start
up a subscription for a Weekly for you & is sure to
head it with a good sum. Your Path is a most excellent
theosophical paper, but useless for militant
purposes."
Notice again in this letter HPB's emphasis:
"What you need in America is a Weekly if not a
FIGHTING daily."
"You hardly dare to say booh in it [THE PATH], for
fear it should look like polemics."
You need "a weekly, a theosophical pucka fighting
paper"
Again one sees the editorial policy of LUCIFER in the
following words from HPB's pen:
"Open your columns to free and fearless discussion,
and do as the theosophical periodicals have ever done,
and as LUCIFER is now preparing to do. The 'bright Son
of the morning' fears no light. He courts it, and is
prepared to publish any INIMICAL contributions
(couched, of course, in decent language), however much
at VARIANCE with his theosophical views. He is
determined to give a fair hearing in any and every
case, to both contending parties and allow things and
thoughts to be judged on their respective merits. For
why, or what should one dread when fact and truth are
one's only aim?"
I have put "variance" and "inimical" in caps.
One might also review what HPB and the Mahatmas wrote
about the purpose of THE THEOSOPHIST when it was first
founded by HPB in 1879 in India.
I won't marshall all these additional quotes but will
select one of my favorite quotes from HPB when she was
still in India:
"...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things
at their right value; and unless a judge compares
notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a
correct decision."
Although there is always dangers in generalizing, I
would suggest that in the 20th century the great
majority of magazines published by Theosophical groups
have followed THE PATH model of "meek &
conciliating literature" avoiding at all cost any
thing that looked like polemics. To many Theosophical
students nowadays anything remotely suggesting
"polemics" or "militant" or "fighting" is viewed as
almost ANTI-Theosophical.
But serious students of Blavatsky's writings might
profit from pondering on the implications of HPB's own
words quoted above.
Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 13:59:44 -0000
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
Subject: Re: re "n/Monad" and HPB
Hi Mauri,
If you would look up the source for these ideas in The Mahatma
Letters to A.P. Sinnett, you would see that this idea of One of
Blavatsky's principles being withheld was indeed talked about as
explaining that her temper was the way it was.
Katinka
Geoffrey A. Barborka in his "H.P. BLAVATSKY,
TIBET AND TUKU" had some interesting
comments (seemed to me) about the interlapping
nature of aspects of reality (as per the "7 principle"}
in that, for example, apparently "one" of such
"principles" was withheld from HPB (in whatever
sense!) as assurance (apparently?) that she would
not pass on ... whatever ... so, apparently that
"withholding" (if it can be called that) resulted in a
certain kind of personality change in HPB
(accounting for some of her temper, maybe?) ... but,
seems that (according to my interpretation of
Barborka) the 7 principles (atma, buddhi, manas,
etc) interblend, and might be affected (even
manipulated, as in HPB's case?) in subtle ways,
(resulting, in turn, in various karmaic
"interpretations" ?)...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:51:46 -0000
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
Subject: Re: Annie Besant's and C.W. Leadbeater's Theosophical
Contributions.
Hi Daniel and others,
This article is decent, but a bit outdated, I think. I share with the
writer some of his concerns about the E.S., but on the other hand
some of his proposed changes sound too authoritarian to me. Also his
judgement of Annie Besant is common, yet harsh and simplifying. I
have recently put online some quotes from her work that foreshadow
some of Krishnamurti's essential thoughts, as well as show that she
had at that time still a mental touch with H.P. Blavatsky's work. See:
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/besant.html
(quotes from Adyar Pamphlet nr. 13)
One wise comment I would like to quote here is the following (from
the above document):
Our one great danger, as H.P.B. recognized, is the danger of
getting into a groove, and so becoming fossilized in the forms of
belief that many hold today ......... The Society (1) is intended,
always has been intended, to be a living body and not a fossil, and a
living body grows and develops, adapting itself to new
conditions ...........>>
(Adyar Pamphlet nr. 13)
Though some of the problems of the Theosophical Society in the past
are well brought out in Farthing's article, his solutions are
archaic, IMO. He seems to want the TS to copy the ULT-position, and
limit the TS-work to HPB and comparing her work to science and
religion. Now I'm not saying that this is something bad or anything.
By all means, let those who want to do that, do so. But I think the
current wealth of spiritual literature is not taken advantage of
enough. Especially the wealth of (Tibetan) Buddhist literature. The
TS is hardly the same as it was in the 1930´s. I am a subscriber of
the Theosophist and its content refers to HPB far more often than it
does to Leadbeater. In Quest the ratio is a bit different, but HPB
does get refered to more often than Leadbeater, I think. In Quest it
is hard to count, as neither are refered to very often. The writers
focuss on other spiritual and religious traditions most.
A good example of HPB inspired literature in the Theosophist is an
article I published on my website recently, from the may 2003 issue.
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/meditation_hpb.html
It is about the HPB´s Meditation diagram, also mentioned in the below
article.
But we can´t go back to the days when HPB was almost the only
valuable literature around. The last quarter of the 20th century has
passed and whichever of the many claiments was the actual prophesied
messenger mentioned by HPB isn´t clear, but whichever it is,
theosophists of whatever ilk have not had enough watchfulness to
welcome him her with open arms. I have been corresponding recently
with somebody who thinks it was is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
(trancendental meditation). Another possibility is Ken Wilber. Then
again perhaps one of the many (or all of them at once) Tibetan
Buddhists who have spread over Western lands could be it. Or one of
the Zen Buddhists. Or simply the Dalai Lama. Which of you knows
enough of the theosophical tradition AND each of these claimants (and
there are probably many more) to have confidence in one of them?
Then again, we can hardly go back and ignore Krishnamurti himself
either. The writer calls his coming a failure, and it certainly was
one as far as TS pr goes, but judging by the amount of visitors my
Krishnamurti site gets, his words are certainly more apreciated by
modern people than those of HPB. This is of course not reason to
believe him a world teacher, though I personally think he was one.
One way of explaining what happened is simply that his message was
meant for the world, not just for theosophists. Another way is to
know that what he said was not appreciated by theosophists at that
time, unfortunately. But fortunately enough, current day theosophists
do often appreciate his message enough to know that he did not miss
HPB at all. His words show that what he learned, he did not need HPB
to learn. And what he did not mention, he did not need to know or
need to mention (whichever it is). Are we really stupid enough to
think that all knowledge will look like Blavatskyan theosophy? Is a
next messenger really going to have to know HPB by heart in order to
convince us? Isn´t it more likely that they will have their own
connection to the eternal verities and will simply go about
correcting the mistakes or misinterpretations of what has come before?
Also, if we are going to stare ourselves blind at HPB, we are going
to miss some great truths available elsewhere. Not just ´inspiring
words´ for a lonely night, but metaphysical truths about the nature
of reality. I am thinking particularly of the mystery of sunyata.
There is good evidence that the Mahatmas were indeed simply well
educated Tibetan Buddhists, so why aren´t we all out studying what we
can of their tantras and philosophy? Why do we get stuck on
irrelevant details on rounds and races and Atlantis and stuf? (yes I
know, I am exagerating). Still the point is there: are rounds and
races relevant to the resolution of suffering? The simple question of
the Buddha in other form. Should a doctor mess with theories on how
an arrow speeds through the sky, or heal the wound of the man dying
from it? When we focuss too much on details we miss the simple truths
that we need to focuss on to heal our own wounds. And only when those
wounds are dealt with, can we hope to help others. Blavatsky hinted
at this too when she suggested in the Bowen thing that we keep the
central three truths always in mind and study only those as long as
necessary.
I think I´ve ranted enough for now.
Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE
by Geoffrey A. Farthing
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:55:11 -0000
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
Subject: Re: re real/apparent differences of opinion re Theosophy
Hi Mauri,
I think differences of opinion are logical results of us being human.
Also, it was attempts at unifying the various interpretations of
Christ that turned the Catholic Church bad, IMO. Then again, in the
same vein, if we can´t discuss differences of opinion, then what are
we doing here? How can we hope to learn if our differences of opinion
don´t get expressed, discussed, learned from?
Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Mauri <mhart@i...> wrote:
As I tend to see it, students of Theosophy, in
general, seem to occasionally show signs , (as per
A.L. Cleather's THE GREAT BETRAYAL, for
example), of differences of opinion about what
might be called (?) the "spirit of Theosophy as
brought to us by HPB." Which might remind one,
incidentally, that only a short couple of thousand
years ago (kind of like just yesterday?) there were
differences of opinion about another messenger,
Jesus, which differences resulted in ... But we all
know about that story, don't we?
I think I'm trying to say, in other words, that as long
as there's karma, there are differences of opinion, so
if we really don't want to have differences of
opinion ... Of course, on the other hand (?), if "the
quality of spirituality" is seen as a highly relevant
matter in Theosophy, then, (one might wonder?), if
the diffrerences of opinion about such "key
concerns re spirituality" (on whatever interpretive
level) might tend to occasionally promote some kind
of Theosophical wars, in some ways ... Of course, on
the other hand (?), one can at least preTEND to be a
peaceable type, at any rate, if that's seen as keyish,
so ...
Speculatively,
Mauri
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:57:23 -0000
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
Subject: Re: new member info
Hi Rebecca,
You are doing just fine. It does help if you try to be polite, but
then again, biting comments are also welcomed here, sometimes (though
don´t be surprised if people bite back).
Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "rebecca kore" <RebeccaKo@m...>
wrote:
is there reference info on how to participate in the group,
technical help,
how to respond to other members, ask for feedback, etc.
thanks...RebeccaKo
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 17:57:54 -0000
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
Subject: Two Important Reprints on H.P. Blavatsky & H.S. Olcott
Kessinger Publishing has reprinted many volumes of THE THEOSOPHIST
(Adyar, Madras, India).
Two important volumes for Blavatsky students are the following:
Theosophist Magazine (July 1931-September 1931)
This reprint INCLUDES the:
"H.P.B. Centenary Number," The Theosophist, August 1931, pp. 553-692.
Contains 140 pages of rare documents about H.P. Blavatsky including
letters of HPB, some of her manuscripts, plus facsimiles and
illustrations
Order from Amazon.com at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0766152030/
--------------------------
Theosophist Magazine (May 1932-August 1932)
This reprint INCLUDES the:
"Olcott Centenary Number," The Theosophist, August 1932 pp. 467-692.
Contains 225 pages of rare documents about H.S. Olcott, H.P.
Blavatsky and the Mahatmas. Including facsimiles and illustration.
Order from Amazon.com at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0766152014/
Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:25:28 -0000
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
Subject: Reprint of 3 volumes of ULT's "Theosophy Magazine"
Kessinger Publishing has apparently reprinted three early volumes of
the United Lodge of Theosophists' publication titled "Theosophy
Magazine."
Theosophy Magazine Vol. 2 (November 1913-October 1914)
Order from Amazon.com at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0766152960/
Theosophy Magazine Vol. 3 (November 1914-October 1915)
Order from Amazon.com at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0766152987/
Theosophy Magazine Vol. 4 (November 1915-October 1916)
Order from Amazon.com at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0766152995/
Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:37:13 -0000
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
Subject: Letters of W.Q. Judge to H.S. Olcott (1877-1884)
The January through December 1931 issues of THE THEOSOPHIST have a
series of articles titled "Letters of W.Q. Judge." These articles
contain transcriptions of Judge's twenty-three letters (dated 1877-
1884) to Olcott. The originals are preserved in the archives of The
Theosophical Society (Adyar, Madras, India).
Kessinger Publishing has reprinted the entire 12 issues of THE
THEOSOPHIST for the year 1931 in four volumes. These issues also
contain other valuable articles and material on H.P. Blavatsky and
H.S. Olcott.
Theosophist Magazine (January 1931-March 1931)
Order from:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0766152057/
Theosophist Magazine (April 1931-June 1931)
Order from:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0766152065/
Theosophist Magazine (July 1931-September 1931)
Order from:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0766152030/
Theosophist Magazine (October 1931-December 1931)
Order from:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0766152049/
Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:50:21 -0400
From: Mauri <mhart@idirect.ca>
Subject: re ULT and G. de P.
Here's a quote from G. de Purucker that might raise
some eyebrows, maybe (or whatever?). It's from
"The Dialogues of G. de P," volume 2, KTMG
papers, June 11, 1930, page 129:
<<There is today an association of Theosophists
who now call themselves 'The United Lodge of
Theosophists.' As far as I have been able to gather,
they apparently think that all esoteric inspiration
and all receiving of new esoteric light stopped when
H.P.B. and W.QJ. died — that all the esoteric wheels
stopped then and there, and that there remains
nothing in the world for men to live up to or aspire
to in the way of a stream of illumination and
teaching excepting the books that these two
Messengers wrote and left behind them.
Yes, 'The United Lodge of Theosophists' are in fact
bibliolaters, book-worshipers. Because they have H.
P. B.'s and W. Q. J.'s books, the situation is not so
bad; but is not this situation just what the sects in
Christianity have degenerated into ?
Now these good and earnest people otherwise
deserve credit for their splendid loyalty to H. P. B.
and to Judge, yet if they don't know it themselves
intellectually, they are instinctively conscious of the
fact that they have cut themselves off from the living
stream of inspiration flowing from the Great Lodge;
that their whole dependence is on books. They
disclaim any Teachers.>>
=====end of quote
On the other hand ...
Speculatively,
Mauri
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:47:22 -0000
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
Subject: The ULT /Theosophy Company on G. de P.
Thanks Mauri for your quote from G. de P. about the ULT.
Go to the link below and you will see two chapters from the AFTERMATH
series in which the editors of THEOSOPHY magazine critique G. de P.'s
claim.
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/contradictionslatermessengers.htm#(5)
After reading to the end of Part IX of the AFTERMATH series, click on
the link to Part X which gives even more commentary on G. de P.
Daniel H. Caldwell
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:49:45 -0000
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
Subject: A BETTER LINK to: The ULT /Theosophy Company on G. de P.
Thanks Mauri for your quote from G. de P. about the ULT.
Go to the link below and you will see two chapters from the AFTERMATH
series in which the editors of THEOSOPHY magazine critique G. de P.'s
claim.
http://blavatskyarchives.com/contradictionslatermessengers.htm#(5)
After reading to the end of Part IX of the AFTERMATH series, click on
the link to Part X which gives even more commentary on G. de P.
Daniel H. Caldwell
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 03:12:16 -0000
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
Subject: Here is a working link!!!
Here is a working link to the "Theosophy" magazine articles on G. de
P. See:
http://www.geocities.com/danielhcaldwell/gdp.htm
Sorry for the mixup!
Daniel
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 09:32:58 +0200
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
Subject: Re: re ULT and G. de P.
Hi all of you,
Yes.
And H. P. Blavatsky (HPB) states the following:
"THEOSOPHIST. .Individuals in every age have more or less clearly
apprehended the Theosophical doctrines and wrought them into a fabric of
their lives. These doctrines belong exclusively to no religion, and are
confined to no society or time. These are the birthright of every human
soul. Such a thing as orthodoxy must be wrought out by each individual
according to his nature and needs, and according to his varying experience.
This may explain why those who imagined Theosophy to be a new religion have
hunted in vain for its creed and its ritual. Its creed is Loyalty to Truth,
and its ritual 'To honour every truth by use'.". And later.
"ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer to follow, in that case, besides
Buddhistic ethics?
THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion and to no philosophy
in
particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, it must be
stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is divided into
Exoteric and Esoteric sections."
(The Key to Theosophy by HPB; Section 2)
from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mauri" <mhart@idirect.ca>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>; "Theosophy Study List"
<theos-l@list.vnet.net>; <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 1:50 AM
Subject: Theos-World re ULT and G. de P.
Here's a quote from G. de Purucker that might raise
some eyebrows, maybe (or whatever?). It's from
"The Dialogues of G. de P," volume 2, KTMG
papers, June 11, 1930, page 129:
<<There is today an association of Theosophists
who now call themselves 'The United Lodge of
Theosophists.' As far as I have been able to gather,
they apparently think that all esoteric inspiration
and all receiving of new esoteric light stopped when
H.P.B. and W.QJ. died - that all the esoteric wheels
stopped then and there, and that there remains
nothing in the world for men to live up to or aspire
to in the way of a stream of illumination and
teaching excepting the books that these two
Messengers wrote and left behind them.
Yes, 'The United Lodge of Theosophists' are in fact
bibliolaters, book-worshipers. Because they have H.
P. B.'s and W. Q. J.'s books, the situation is not so
bad; but is not this situation just what the sects in
Christianity have degenerated into ?
Now these good and earnest people otherwise
deserve credit for their splendid loyalty to H. P. B.
and to Judge, yet if they don't know it themselves
intellectually, they are instinctively conscious of the
fact that they have cut themselves off from the living
stream of inspiration flowing from the Great Lodge;
that their whole dependence is on books. They
disclaim any Teachers.>>
=====end of quote
On the other hand ...
Speculatively,
Mauri
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 02:34:46 -0700
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: re ULT and G. de P.
Thanks Morten
Dal
-------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Morten Nymann Olesen [mailto:global-theosophy@adslhome.dk]
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 12:33 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World re ULT and G. de P.
Hi all of you,
Yes.
And H. P. Blavatsky (HPB) states the following:
"THEOSOPHIST. .Individuals in every age have more or less clearly
apprehended the Theosophical doctrines and wrought them into a
fabric of
their lives. These doctrines belong exclusively to no religion,
and are
confined to no society or time. These are the birthright of every
human
soul. Such a thing as orthodoxy must be wrought out by each
individual
according to his nature and needs, and according to his varying
experience.
This may explain why those who imagined Theosophy to be a new
religion have
hunted in vain for its creed and its ritual. Its creed is Loyalty
to Truth,
and its ritual 'To honour every truth by use'.". And later.
"ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer to follow, in that case,
besides
Buddhistic ethics?
THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion and to no
philosophy in
particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, it
must be
stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is divided
into
Exoteric and Esoteric sections."
(The Key to Theosophy by HPB; Section 2)
from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mauri" <mhart@idirect.ca>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>; "Theosophy Study List"
<theos-l@list.vnet.net>; <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 1:50 AM
Subject: Theos-World re ULT and G. de P.
Here's a quote from G. de Purucker that might raise
some eyebrows, maybe (or whatever?). It's from
"The Dialogues of G. de P," volume 2, KTMG
papers, June 11, 1930, page 129:
<<There is today an association of Theosophists
who now call themselves 'The United Lodge of
Theosophists.' As far as I have been able to gather,
they apparently think that all esoteric inspiration
and all receiving of new esoteric light stopped when
H.P.B. and W.QJ. died - that all the esoteric wheels
stopped then and there, and that there remains
nothing in the world for men to live up to or aspire
to in the way of a stream of illumination and
teaching excepting the books that these two
Messengers wrote and left behind them.
Yes, 'The United Lodge of Theosophists' are in fact
bibliolaters, book-worshipers. Because they have H.
P. B.'s and W. Q. J.'s books, the situation is not so
bad; but is not this situation just what the sects in
Christianity have degenerated into ?
Now these good and earnest people otherwise
deserve credit for their splendid loyalty to H. P. B.
and to Judge, yet if they don't know it themselves
intellectually, they are instinctively conscious of the
fact that they have cut themselves off from the living
stream of inspiration flowing from the Great Lodge;
that their whole dependence is on books. They
disclaim any Teachers.>>
=====end of quote
On the other hand ...
Speculatively,
Mauri
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 11:44:55 +0200
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
Subject: Re: No. 1/2 - HPB: "You hardly dare to say booh..."
Hi Daniel and all of you,
Number 1 of 2 emails:
My views:
Thanks !
This email in the below is very good and helpfull.
I wonder why others havn't made any responses on this email ?
To all readers: What stance so you have of any at all ? Are you a
Theosophist ?
I think this email in the below is very important and
should not be overlooked !
1.
My views and suggestions:
So please take of those gloves of yours and start writing
teaching-articles and not those "soft" copy-cat ones, which have cluttered
the
Theosophical magazine for decades !
Adress the needs of the Theosophists of today year 2003.
(Today we have clones, mobilephones, genetics, bombs, virus, Internet etc...
And we still have the Orthodox Churches - alive and "kicking".)
Don't be afraid of your own ignorance - because it will show it self
anyway - and especially if you don't take a clear stance on
the evil or bad motivated deeds of present groups in this present society
(spiritual or mortal)
of today.
You should protest against wrong doings - this is your spiritual duty !
Protest against false teachings. Teachings og the Jesuitic kind. Don't be
fooled.
They really exist and also close to Theosophical teachings.
But be realistic as well. Prejudice also fools the wellmeaning students.
Either do it by writing or by acting. But do something.
Daniel Caldwell wrote quoting Blavatsky:
"Your Path is a most excellent
theosophical paper, but useless for militant
purposes."
What do you think that Blavatsky intend with her "militant" remark ? "
from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 2:47 PM
Subject: Theos-World HPB: "You hardly dare to say booh in it, for fear it
should look like polemics."
po·lem·ic
Etymology: French polémique, from Middle French, from
polemique controversial, from Greek polemikos warlike,
hostile, from polemos war
1 a : an aggressive attack on or refutation of the
opinions or principles of another b : the art or
practice of disputation or controversy -- usually used
in plural but sing. or plural in constr.
2 : an aggressive controversialist : DISPUTANT
-------------------------------------------------------
The very month (Sept. 1887) H.P. Blavatsky founded her
magazine LUCIFER in London, she wrote to W.Q. Judge
about the differences between THE PATH and her new
magazine:
"If I thought for one moment that 'Lucifer' will 'rub
out' Path I would never consent to be its editor. Now
listen to me my good old friend: Once that the Masters
have proclaimed your 'Path' the best the most
theosophical of all theosophical publications - surely
it is not to allow it to be rubbed out!! I know what I
am saying & doing, my 'commanding genius' not
withstanding. To prove this - (which will be proven to
you by the first number of Lucifer when you see its
polemical contents) I will write every month regularly
for "Path" occult, transcendental & theosophical
articles. I give you my word of honour of HPB. I will
force people to subscribe for Path & this will never
hurt 'Lucifer.' One is the fighting, combative Manas -
the other (Path) is pure Buddhi. Can't both be united
in an offensive & defensive alliance in one rupa or
Sthula Sarira - theosophy? Lucifer will be Theosophy
militant - 'Path' the shining light, the Star of
Peace. If your intuition does not whisper to you - it
is so: then that intuition must be wool-gathering. No
Sir; the 'Path' is too well, too theosophically edited
for me to interfere. I am not born for meek &
conciliating literature!" Quoted from:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/hpbwqj0987.htm
Notice some of the key phrases in HPB's letter:
"polemical contents" of LUCIFER
LUCIFER is to be "the fighting, combative Manas."
"Lucifer will be Theosophy militant"
"I am not born for meek & conciliating literature!"
Almost two years later, HPB felt the need to write to
Judge again urging him to found a new journal
different from THE PATH:
". . . What you need in America is a Weekly if not a
fighting daily. Path is a 'lamb-Job' an ever meek
Jeremiah, as is our Revue Theosophique in Paris. You
hardly dare to say booh in it, for fear it should look
like polemics. If, profiting by the occasion, you
should address every Theosophist & Esotericist and
have Buck & a few others to help you - and
representing them the truth, namely that Theosophy
cannot triumph so long as every paper pitches into it
and none will print an answer, collect money enough to
publish a weekly, a theosophical pucka fighting paper
'the Champion' or the 'Wrangler', or some such thing &
set Fullerton as nominal editor & you the real Boss,
then we could get on. Now Mrs. Candler. . . will start
up a subscription for a Weekly for you & is sure to
head it with a good sum. Your Path is a most excellent
theosophical paper, but useless for militant
purposes."
Notice again in this letter HPB's emphasis:
"What you need in America is a Weekly if not a
FIGHTING daily."
"You hardly dare to say booh in it [THE PATH], for
fear it should look like polemics."
You need "a weekly, a theosophical pucka fighting
paper"
Again one sees the editorial policy of LUCIFER in the
following words from HPB's pen:
"Open your columns to free and fearless discussion,
and do as the theosophical periodicals have ever done,
and as LUCIFER is now preparing to do. The 'bright Son
of the morning' fears no light. He courts it, and is
prepared to publish any INIMICAL contributions
(couched, of course, in decent language), however much
at VARIANCE with his theosophical views. He is
determined to give a fair hearing in any and every
case, to both contending parties and allow things and
thoughts to be judged on their respective merits. For
why, or what should one dread when fact and truth are
one's only aim?"
I have put "variance" and "inimical" in caps.
One might also review what HPB and the Mahatmas wrote
about the purpose of THE THEOSOPHIST when it was first
founded by HPB in 1879 in India.
I won't marshall all these additional quotes but will
select one of my favorite quotes from HPB when she was
still in India:
"...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things
at their right value; and unless a judge compares
notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a
correct decision."
Although there is always dangers in generalizing, I
would suggest that in the 20th century the great
majority of magazines published by Theosophical groups
have followed THE PATH model of "meek &
conciliating literature" avoiding at all cost any
thing that looked like polemics. To many Theosophical
students nowadays anything remotely suggesting
"polemics" or "militant" or "fighting" is viewed as
almost ANTI-Theosophical.
But serious students of Blavatsky's writings might
profit from pondering on the implications of HPB's own
words quoted above.
Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 11:44:58 +0200
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
Subject: Re: No. 2/2 - HPB: "You hardly dare to say booh..."
Hi Daniel and all of you,
Number 2 of 2 emails:
My views:
Thanks !
This email in the below is very good and helpfull.
I wonder why others havn't made any responses on this email ?
To all readers: What stance so you have of any at all ? Are you a
Theosophist ?
I think this email in the below is very important and
should not be overlooked !
2.
My views and suggestions on politics:
Now I have been writing about politics before here at Theos-Talk.
I have been adressing the Alice A. Bailey groups and their involvement
in the United Nations and their political programes. I am as some of you
know a former Alice A. Bialey member.
*** I have protested against - the latest newsletter from the alice A.
Bailey organization Lucis Trust:
HPB would certainly have reacted to such a newsletter as the one in mention:
http://www.lucistrust.org/goodwill/nl/2003/2/index.shtml
(Lucis Trust - Newslettter no. 2, year 2003)
The Lucis Trust are according to me not teaching altruism, which is the
basis of Theosophy.
*** The following link - is a letter from HPB to W.Q. Judge - 1888. HPB here
clearly states, that she is against corrupt politics ! And that Theosophy
doesn't meddle with politics. So what do we get from that ?
I quote HPB's letter here :
"Here in England Theosophy is waking into new life. The slanders and absurd
inventions of the Society for Psychical Research have almost paralysed it,
though only for a very short time, and the example of America has stirred
the English Theosophists into renewed activity. "LUCIFER" sounded the
reveille, and the first fruit has been the founding of the "Theosophical
Publication Society." This Society is of great importance. It has undertaken
the very necessary work of breaking down the barrier of prejudice and
ignorance which has formed so great an impediment to the spread of
Theosophy. It will act as a recruiting agency for the Society by the wide
distribution of elementary literature on the subject, among those who in any
way are prepared to give ear to it."."I am confident that, when the real
nature of Theosophy is understood, the prejudice against it, now so
unfortunately prevalent, will die out. Theosophists are of necessity friends
of all movements in the world, whether intellectual or simply practical, for
the amelioration of the condition of mankind. We are the friends of all
those who fight against drunkenness, against cruelty to animals, against
injustice to women, against corruption in society or in government, although
we do not meddle in politics." (Letter 1 -1888, Second Annual Convention -
April 22-23; - A letter to W.Q. Judge to read to the Convention summoned for
April 22d.)
*** The deeds of the Alice A. Bailey groups are many. My reaction towards
this groups is, that they often teach, that they follow Theosophical
teachings - or anicent wisdom. AND that their teaching are based on the
teachings of Blavatsky.
And IMPORTANT is, that they heavily involved with politics on an
international level - in their own socalled spiritual manner.
The following links should give some of why I protest against this. And let
us remember, that they were written before the latest war on Iraq !!!:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/10605 (A. A. Bailey at
United Nations)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/10564 (The Bailey books are
biased)
http://www.freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/lucistrust.html
(Freemasons knows about Alice A. Bailey and the United Nations - Meditation
Room)
from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 2:47 PM
Subject: Theos-World HPB: "You hardly dare to say booh in it, for fear it
should look like polemics."
po·lem·ic
Etymology: French polémique, from Middle French, from
polemique controversial, from Greek polemikos warlike,
hostile, from polemos war
1 a : an aggressive attack on or refutation of the
opinions or principles of another b : the art or
practice of disputation or controversy -- usually used
in plural but sing. or plural in constr.
2 : an aggressive controversialist : DISPUTANT
-------------------------------------------------------
The very month (Sept. 1887) H.P. Blavatsky founded her
magazine LUCIFER in London, she wrote to W.Q. Judge
about the differences between THE PATH and her new
magazine:
"If I thought for one moment that 'Lucifer' will 'rub
out' Path I would never consent to be its editor. Now
listen to me my good old friend: Once that the Masters
have proclaimed your 'Path' the best the most
theosophical of all theosophical publications - surely
it is not to allow it to be rubbed out!! I know what I
am saying & doing, my 'commanding genius' not
withstanding. To prove this - (which will be proven to
you by the first number of Lucifer when you see its
polemical contents) I will write every month regularly
for "Path" occult, transcendental & theosophical
articles. I give you my word of honour of HPB. I will
force people to subscribe for Path & this will never
hurt 'Lucifer.' One is the fighting, combative Manas -
the other (Path) is pure Buddhi. Can't both be united
in an offensive & defensive alliance in one rupa or
Sthula Sarira - theosophy? Lucifer will be Theosophy
militant - 'Path' the shining light, the Star of
Peace. If your intuition does not whisper to you - it
is so: then that intuition must be wool-gathering. No
Sir; the 'Path' is too well, too theosophically edited
for me to interfere. I am not born for meek &
conciliating literature!" Quoted from:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/hpbwqj0987.htm
Notice some of the key phrases in HPB's letter:
"polemical contents" of LUCIFER
LUCIFER is to be "the fighting, combative Manas."
"Lucifer will be Theosophy militant"
"I am not born for meek & conciliating literature!"
Almost two years later, HPB felt the need to write to
Judge again urging him to found a new journal
different from THE PATH:
". . . What you need in America is a Weekly if not a
fighting daily. Path is a 'lamb-Job' an ever meek
Jeremiah, as is our Revue Theosophique in Paris. You
hardly dare to say booh in it, for fear it should look
like polemics. If, profiting by the occasion, you
should address every Theosophist & Esotericist and
have Buck & a few others to help you - and
representing them the truth, namely that Theosophy
cannot triumph so long as every paper pitches into it
and none will print an answer, collect money enough to
publish a weekly, a theosophical pucka fighting paper
'the Champion' or the 'Wrangler', or some such thing &
set Fullerton as nominal editor & you the real Boss,
then we could get on. Now Mrs. Candler. . . will start
up a subscription for a Weekly for you & is sure to
head it with a good sum. Your Path is a most excellent
theosophical paper, but useless for militant
purposes."
Notice again in this letter HPB's emphasis:
"What you need in America is a Weekly if not a
FIGHTING daily."
"You hardly dare to say booh in it [THE PATH], for
fear it should look like polemics."
You need "a weekly, a theosophical pucka fighting
paper"
Again one sees the editorial policy of LUCIFER in the
following words from HPB's pen:
"Open your columns to free and fearless discussion,
and do as the theosophical periodicals have ever done,
and as LUCIFER is now preparing to do. The 'bright Son
of the morning' fears no light. He courts it, and is
prepared to publish any INIMICAL contributions
(couched, of course, in decent language), however much
at VARIANCE with his theosophical views. He is
determined to give a fair hearing in any and every
case, to both contending parties and allow things and
thoughts to be judged on their respective merits. For
why, or what should one dread when fact and truth are
one's only aim?"
I have put "variance" and "inimical" in caps.
One might also review what HPB and the Mahatmas wrote
about the purpose of THE THEOSOPHIST when it was first
founded by HPB in 1879 in India.
I won't marshall all these additional quotes but will
select one of my favorite quotes from HPB when she was
still in India:
"...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things
at their right value; and unless a judge compares
notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a
correct decision."
Although there is always dangers in generalizing, I
would suggest that in the 20th century the great
majority of magazines published by Theosophical groups
have followed THE PATH model of "meek &
conciliating literature" avoiding at all cost any
thing that looked like polemics. To many Theosophical
students nowadays anything remotely suggesting
"polemics" or "militant" or "fighting" is viewed as
almost ANTI-Theosophical.
But serious students of Blavatsky's writings might
profit from pondering on the implications of HPB's own
words quoted above.
Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
