Re: Alternatives? A comment or two to A.B.
Jun 18, 1996 11:39 AM
by alexis dolgorukii
At 02:49 AM 6/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
>For example, I believe
>Alexis has said something to the effect that he believes HPB wrote most if
>not all of the Mahatma
>Letters. I have no idea what Alexis has based this conclusion on or for
>that matter exactly
>what he really means by such a statement. We have just a declaration by
>Alexis. Fine and good.
>But if I am interested enough in that statement by Alexis to
>ASK MYSELF whether his statement is true or not, I have no idea how he
>arrived at such a
>Written in haste,
>Daniel my friend, I really believe you would rather not know how I "arrived
at such a conclusion", so I will simply say that much of it was, in part, an
intuitive reaction to the material which I read. I assume you won't consider
simple intuition to be too "Third Object". Now, you say you have no idea
what I mean by the statement that "HPB wrote most if not all of the Mahatmas
Letters". I mean exactly what I said. The letters were the product of HPB's
intelligence, which to me is a "committee intelligence" as she was a Tulku,
and they were precipitated (apported) to their destinations by HPB herself.
I think she did this in an effort to "shore up" an authority she felt was
insufficient to convince people of things she wanted to convince them of. I
can certainly give one concrete non-intuitional reason for my thought and
that is: I own, and have read and re-read "The Mahatma Letters to
A.P.Sinnett" and the "Letters of H.P. Blavatsky to A.P.Sinnett" (both in the
original editions) and the writer, IMO, would appear to be largely the same
person in both cases.
Now, lest you think I am accusing HPB of fraud, I am NOT. I also believe
that HPB felt, that as a Tulku or Channel she was entitled to produce
evidence of a contact which she believed was very real indeed. I think she
was completely mistaken in this procedure as it has clearly caused more
problems than it solved. Had there been no "Mahatma Letters" there would
have been no SPR Report, had she not spent so much time doing the "parlor
tricks" (with which she herself was far too fascinated) and more time
clarifying her message, she and theosophy would be far better off today.
The poor old woman, at the end of her life, begged and pleaded that
theosophy NOT take the turn it has clearly and fatally taken. She said
clearly that if Theosophy turns into a Religion (and Doss has recently
posted her statement so there's no need to beat dead horses),in other words,
that if it accepts "Core Doctrines" and treats them as if they were dogma,
then Theosophy is doomed. And so actually, all that JRC, Jerry S., Alan
Bain, Chuck Cosimano, and I are doing is agreeing with HPB and trying to
give theosophy a new lease on life.
One thing I don't understand is how the orthodoxy in Theosophy can treat
almost every word of HPB's as Doctrine but then go on to totally ignore her
warnings. I will also say, that, based upon my readings on the subject, THE
THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY (as clearly opposed to theosophy) is about 95% CWL/AB
and 5% HPB and that is a very great shame.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application