re BAG, "Brian-Brigitte," RC, Theosophy, and ...
- I'm posting the following on both Theos-1 and Theos Talk,
as per Daniels precedent re BAG, recently. Does anybody
have a problem with that in my case? BAG?
Dec 18/02, BAG wrote, in part (ie, in small, small part): <<In
a culture where one identifies one's guru before even
introducing oneself, it is extremely strange for HPB to
have kept her guru(s) a secret all those years. Her
Theosophical moral teachings were not tamasic /
Left-hand Tantric, so why all the secrecy ? Were her
Rajas Masons? Were they Sufi occultists? I doubt it.
She didn't produce them and they never came forward to
acknowledge her as their disciple, because 'they' did not
exist. Her Mahatmas were BASED ON real people, but
they were composites. Like the Stanzas of Dzyan, her
Mahatmas were complied from bits and pieces of real
literatures / real people, but could not be produced
in-the-flesh or in-the-text, because they were not real
people or real literatures. The Mahatmas and the Stanzas
were HPB and friends' creation. In the case of the
Kashmiri Rajas, these real and unique persons clearly
provided a model on which the grand Punjabi or
Kashmiri ARYAN Mahatmas were fashioned. They
Kashmiri Rajas were also part of that unique religious
Kashmiri Mix, and could very well have supplied HPB and
friends with a vast amount of information. The fact that
the Kashmiri Singh Dynasty Rajas were involved in an
enormous library project is extremely important when we
consider what information came to HPB and friends
through their contacts with them. >>
BAG, I think most of us here know that the RC and
Bhakti yoga practitioners and various people and groups
did not, during HPB's time, and still don't, (apparently
enough?), care for HPB or Theosophy. But then,
(apparently enough?), the esoteric essence of Theosophy
is, or at least tends to be, I suspect, beyond most people,
anyway, (regardless of which way it might get twisted,
along the way, by whoever), isn't it? No? On the other
hand, I wonder if there may be those who might prefer to
believe that there is no such thing as "esoteric essence" in
Theosophy, and/or that one ought to just drop one's
interest in Theosophy and join the RC, or some Bhakti
yoga group, or something else, instead?
I tend to see much promise in the ESSENCE of Theosophy
as brought to us by HPB, Judge and various other writers.
No need to ask me what I mean by "essence of
Theosophy" since I've been speculating about that topic
recently on these lists, if somewhat indirectly, maybe, by
way of references to "blinds" and "esoteric/exoteric" and
the like. And I tend to think that HPB had a few words to
say, and write, about the "essence of Theosophy," (at least
for those who could read between the lines) so I don't see
how anybody (execept for ... ?) could complain about a
shortage of effort on her part.
And, yes, I think we all know that the RC, and various
more-conventional/mainstream things appear to be far far
"more understandable" and popular than Theosophy;
(clearly enough?), and so, keeping that in mind, one might
wonder why any person with an apparent enough
preference for, say, Bhakti yoga, RC, and whatever else
more-mainstream might want to devote as much time and
effort on these lists as, for example, "Brian/Brigitte" and ...
whoever ... I'm speculating that karma might have
something do with that and every other kind of
phenomena ... So ... Yikes!