Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00284)

> Anand, WHY did the Mahatmas commission Blavatsky to
> write THE SECRET DOCTRINE, THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE,
> etc, etc. when her writings would be CONFUSING and
> creating all the HAVOC you allege?

Every book on religion or spirituality, which is written by members 
of Occult Hierarchy, is written considering time, psychological, 
social, spiritual and other conditions of people at the time of 
writing book. Humanity evolves and so psychological, social, 
spiritual, intellectual conditions change. After these changes if 
person sticks rigidly to old teaching then his progress is hindered. 
When child is in 5th standard certain syllabus is given to him for 
study and growth. But if after graduation also he sticks to the same 
teaching given in 5th standard, rejecting all teaching given later, 
then growth of the person would be hindered. So it is necessary to be 
receptive to new teachings given when humanity evolves. 
Although Secrete Doctrine is confusing, in 19th century it was 
suitable in the early days of the Theosophical Society. Masters 
wisely did not make spiritual truths too clear in the beginning. 
After darkness of centuries it would have been unwise to lift the 
veil suddenly. It had to be a gradual process of first giving glimpse 
of truth and then slowly making things clear. So Blavatsky's somewhat 
confusing writing was appropriate in 19th century. Now in 21 st 
century and after, clear teaching as given by C.W. Leadbeater and 
Annie Besant is appropriate. Even if people don't read Blavatsky's 
writing people won't lose anything because AB, CWL have explained in 
detail what Blavatsky only mentioned.

> 
> You say you see all the damage that was caused
> by her writings. So why were the Mahatmas
> LESS PERCEPTIVE than you?

In 19th century Blavatsky's writing was what maximum could be given 
safely. It was appropriate that time. But now sticking to it will 
hinder progress of the person who rigidly sticks to it.

> 
> You have cited documents showing that Leadbeater
> received letters from Master Koot Hoomi in 1884.
> 
> Why didn't the Master "see" that Leadbeater was
> the kind of writer they NEEDED and have him
> either write THE SECRET DOCTRINE or at least
> work closely with Madame Blavatsky to make THE
> SECRET DOCTRINE more readable???

Masters knew that Leadbeater would be writing for many decades, many 
books, giving all the details in Theosophy. So they asked HPB to 
complete last one book Secrete Doctrine. There is nothing wrong in 
that. HPB wrote for many years and asking her to write one more book 
was not a wrong thing to expect. Leadbeater had half life before him 
to write under Masters' supervision which he did very well. 


> 
> This would have kept thousands of readers from
> being "damaged" by reading THE SECRET DOCTRINE.

In 19th century SD was fairly appropriate, more clarity and details 
than that was inappropriate.

> 
> FURTHERMORE, consider what Master Koot Hoomi wrote:
> 
> "I have also noted, your thoughts about the 'Secret Doctrine.' Be
> assured that what she [HPB] has not annotated from scientific and
> other works, we have given or suggested to her. Every mistake or
> erroneous notion, corrected and explained by her from the works of
> other theosophists was corrected by me, or under my instruction. It
> is a more valuable work than its predecessor, an epitome of occult
> truths that will make it a source of information and instruction for
> the earnest student for long years to come. .

Master said SD would be source of information for long years which I 
think is decade or so. Master did not say SD is final writing or it 
will be forever suitable. Master rightly gave time limit.


> 
> Why is the Master recommending THE SECRET DOCTRINE as "a source
> of information and instruction for the earnest student for long
> years to come" if all you say about THE SECRET DOCTRINE is true?
> You say you couldn't recommend the same book.

At present stage of intellectual, spiritual, psychological condition 
of humanity it is inappropriate to recommend Secrete Doctrine.


> 
> Anand, are you telling us that you are a better judge of these
> things than Master K.H.?

As explained above Master did right thing. There is no much 
disagreement between my judgement and what Master did. However it 
would be natural for any sincere student to expect that Masters 
should employ person who is skilled writer, who knows English well, 
who was socially more acceptable. And indeed other advanced disciples 
like Subba Rao did not consider HPB as good choice. According to my 
information even other Adepts did not agree with Master K.H. and M. 
about timing of foundation of TS and they did not consider employment 
of Blavatsky as best choice. So accuracy of planning of whole project 
was debatable and not unanimous among Adepts. And when we look back 
we see mixed results. 


> Please read again the above statement by Master K.H. This statement
> shows that the Master was VERY involved in the production of this
> book. So are you also blaming the Master for the production of such
> a "confusing", "misleading" book????

Master has written to Sinnett that Sinnett would write better than 
Master. It is natural because APS had very good English and lived 
among English people. Masters and HPB both were weak in English 
according to their own statements. However as I said earlier in 19 th 
century it was not proper to make things too clear. So even if there 
was some confusion, book WAS suitable in 19 th century.

Anand Gholap