Nov 09, 1995 10:00 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
> A blind is not a lie or a fabrication but are usually
> created by making generalizations in order to avoid giving
> specific information. HPB was consistent in how she created
> blinds going all the way back at least to ~Isis Unveiled.~
I think that "blind" goes beyond generalizations and does
enter into the area of fibs on occasion. For example HPB
says that all of the names of the Talas are blinds. Then says
"Rasatala is a blind within a blind for Rasa taste belongs
to the next Tala." Inner Group Teachings p. 58. This
looks like an example of deliberate distortion or
disinformation to me.
Yes I remember reading this. However HPB was talking
about blinds used in Indian texts. My discussion with Paul
concerns "blinds" within HPB's writings. I don't believe that
HPB ever used the techniques that she attributed to the Indian
writings. I have seen no real evidence of it nor do I see any
reason for her to do it. If you look at her pre 1880 writings
and how she treated subjects that concern teaching that hadn't
yet been introduced e.g. seven principles reincarnation etc.
it has been my experience that she slides around them by
generalizing not by creating elaborate blinds as she says the
Indians did. I'm open to see any solid examples of such a thing
but haven't seen anything that looks like a consistent and
substantive pattern yet. I believe HPB wrote the ~SD~ to help
people to better understand the esoteric philosophy--not to
further obscure it.
> And who created elaborate "disinformation." Don't you
>consider "disinformation" a deception?
It *is* a deception but a deliberately crafted
one that the "initiated" should be able to see through
while the "unititated" either become confused and give
up or obtain disinformation.
Now the question is does that kind of "disinformation"
exist in HPB's writings? I'm not convinced that it does.
> IMO your thesis concerning the Masters does not address my
>views as stated above one way or the other concerning HPB
> because my opinions of her in these areas do not depend upon
> the existence of the Masters under any definition
I agree with you on this. If the Masters were somehow proved to
be fabrications or "blinds" as Paul would have it this would
not change my opinion of HPB or my view of theosophy at all.
My understanding and respect for the teachings of theosophy as
given by HPB does not hinge in any way on Mahatmas on Masters
on Initiates on Adepts or on anyone else who may have taught
||Please reply to: email@example.com ||and
CC to firstname.lastname@example.org
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application