Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

re BAG, "Brian-Brigitte," RC, Theosophy, and ...

Expand Messages
  • Mauri
    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?
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 8, 2003
      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!

      Speculatively,
      Mauri
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.