Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00304)

Reply to Jerry S.

Firstly, thank you for your comments, Jerry.

>Bazzer: <"The Secret Doctrine", for example, stands or
>falls on one simple plane fact:  Master's did or did not
>help in it's production.  >
>
) the
>SD, like any other book, must stand on its own merits.

Absolutely.  Nevertheless, the source of the work is important
as, sometimes, is the 'author's' credentials to an enquiring
newcommer (a tree being known by its fruit, as it's said).
Sometimes one hear's absurd supositions that the SD, for example,
was dreamed-up by HPB's imagination etc..  It was not.  Maybe the
point here is that we do not need to side-step the issue about
the source of the work, i.e.  the real Authors.

>The argument that it stands or falls on Masters sounds to
>me like the Christian fundamentalist attitude that the
>Bible must be believed because it is the very word of God.
>Sorry Bazzer, I can't buy into either your idea of that
>of the fundamentalists.

Don't feel the above para is in context with the point in
question:-)

>Bazzer: <If HPB *did* write the Letter's then she was a
>fraud and liar, for *she* claimed that she did *not* write
>them.  One would hope that anyone who believes HPB was/is
>a fraud and a liar does not go by the title of
>"theosophist".>
>
>I agree with your first statement.  I do not agree with
>your second.  A theosophist, IMHO,  is someone who
>believes in the reality of universal brotherhood.  Period.
>Whatever else a theosophist may believe in is mental fluff
>and my fluff is as valid as anyone elses.
>
Is it "mental fluff" for one to believe HPB a liar and a fraud
and go around calling oneself by a name (viz theosphist) she is
intimately and historically associated with? Seems unethical.
What would others say?

>Bazzer: <Truth is One.  It is not and can not be 'open' to
>debate.>
>
>This again, IMHO, is pure nonsense.  Truth has been open
>to debate since Adam and Eve ate the apple from the Tree
>of Knowledge (i.e., after they descended below Daath).

"Debate" is the outer; Truth the inner/real.  Truth is "what is";
and "what is" is One (this being fundamental to theo-sophia).

>Bazzer: <...founded by a tool of the Opposition (ie CWL)
>being largely responsible for the fragmentation and
>destruction of HPB's and Master's work. >
>
> Now the poor guy
>is accused of working for the Dark Brotherhood of all
>things!

The original comment stands as is, I'm afraid (potential karma
notwithstanding:-)) NB: a tool is diferent from the user of the
tool.

>Bazzer: <Celibacy is a cin qua non for Practical Occultism
>(these are the basics any theosophist should know and
>understand).  HPB was a practical/practicing Occultist.
>Her virginity was proven by medical examination.  It was
>physically impossible for her to be otherwise after an
>'accident' she had falling from a horse at an early age.>
>
>This statement, IMHO, suggests to me that you know little
>of true occultism.  You are simply quoting some of HPB's
>words

You are entirely correct that one knows little of "true
occultism", but surely it must be assumed that at least HPB
*does*! What is wrong in quoting the words of some one who know's
what they are talking about, i.e.  HPB?

> her accident on the horse
>only prevented her from getting pregnant.

Not a historian BTW, but believe she described the condition as
making impregnation also impossible.  Your account below is
doubtless correct, however.  Thank you for the details.  By
"excuse" I guess you mean evidence?

> She was accused
>of having an illigitimate child and offered the doctor's
>certificate as an excuse as to how it was impossible for
>her to have a child.

>And whether she did or did not have sex with anyone has
>nothing whatever to do with her being an Adept or her
>conversing with Masters.

It has *everything* to do with it (current and past standards of
'civilized' behaviour notwithstanding), as it does with the
(re)opening (currently 'un-natural' for Fourth Round, Fifth Race,
Humanity en mass) of the Third Eye and the *higher* siddhis.

>HPB as quoted by Bazzer: <"The aspirant has to choose
>absolutely between the life of the world and the life of
>Occultism.  It is useless and vain to endeavour to unite
>the two ..." and so on >
>
>This is pure exotericism,

Plane fact, surely? Would others care to comment, please?

> and she is speaking in general
>about what would apply to most (i.e., the average) person.
>Being unmarried makes it easier to tread the Path.
>Period.  Lots of Masters were married (Swami Ramakrishna
>comes to mind as one).

A Mahatma *never* marries (see ML's to APS)

>  And anyone who thinks that you
>can't have sex and stay on the Path is simply whistling
>in the wind.  For every celibate Adept that you can find,
>I can show you an Adept who enjoyed his or her sexuality.
>The two are simply unrelated, except in your own mind
>(i.e., if you think of sex as dirty and sinful, then yes,
>it will be a block for your spiritual development; but so
>will anything else that you think is dirty or sinful).

>I suggest you read LUST FOR ENLIGHTENMENT: BUDDHISM AND SEX
>by John Stevens (Shambala, 1990)

Stick to the SD, I think:-).  It's somehow surprising how the
entire human race hasn't got bored to tears with the s-e-x
fixation:-)..........newspapers, TV, video, bill boards......you
name it its there! "Do not believe that lust can ever be killed
out if gratified or satiated, for this is an abomination inspired
by Mara.  It is by feeding vice that it expands and waxes strong,
like the worm that fattens on the blossom's heart".  Extract from
"The Voice of the Silence" by HPB, pp 17.