Blavatsky on 7D

[arpaxad]

I find it interesting to look at the idea of 7 densities in correspondence with the following quote by HPB (emphasis added):

There were portions of the Secret Science that for incalculable ages had to remain concealed from the profane gaze. But this was because to impart to the unprepared multitude secrets of such tremendous importance, was equivalent to giving a child a lighted candle in a powder magazine.

The answer to a question which has frequently arisen in the minds of students, when meeting with statements such as this, may be outlined here.

"We can understand," they say, "the necessity for concealing from the herd such secrets as the Vril, or the rock-destroying force, discovered by J. W. Keely, of Philadelphia, but we cannot understand how any danger could arise from the revelation of such a purely philosophic doctrine, as, e.g., the evolution of the planetary chains."

The danger was this: Doctrines such as the planetary chain, or the seven races, at once give a clue to the seven-fold nature of man, for each principle is correlated to a plane, a planet, and a race; and the human principles are, on every plane, correlated to seven-fold occult forces -- those of the higher planes being of tremendous power. So that any septenary division at once gives a clue to tremendous occult powers, the abuse of which would cause incalculable evil to humanity. A clue, which is, perhaps, no clue to the present generation -- especially the Westerns -- protected as they are by their very blindness and ignorant materialistic disbelief in the occult; but a clue which would, nevertheless, have been very real in the early centuries of the Christian era, to people fully convinced of the reality of occultism, and entering a cycle of degradation, which made them rife for abuse of occult powers and sorcery of the worst description.

-- H. P. Blavatsky, "The Secret Doctrine," introductory.

 

[Gawan]

I find it rather difficult to draw any line at all to 7d with what Blavatsky states in the above. And why do you promote her work so much?

 

[Laura]

The above claims by Blavatsky are part of the problem. It's like "I've got a secret, nah nah nah naaaaaaaaah..." and it's all about POWER - the dreaded OCCULT power.

Q: (L) Okay, we have strange math. But, you can do anything with numbers because they correspond to the universe at deep levels...

A: Is code.

Q: (L) What does this code relate to? Is it letters or some written work?

A: Infinite power.

[Laura’s note: It is obvious now that the Cs were talking about a phi spiral, Fibonacci Sequence, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, etc., Golden Ratio: The ratio between two consecutive numbers in the Fibonacci Series tends to the Golden Number ?: 0.618… or 1.618; The ratio of each successive pair of numbers in the sequence approximates phi (1.618. . .), as 5 divided by 3 is 1.666…, and 8 divided by 5 is 1.60. but I was ignorant of all that at the time. Poor Cs were SOO frustrated I think.]

Q: (L) How is infinite power acquired by knowing this code? If you don't know the correspondences, how can you use a numerical code?

A: Lord of Serpent promises its followers infinite power which they must seek infinite knowledge to gain, for which they pledge allegiance infinitely, for which they possess for all eternity, so long as they find infinite wisdom, for which they search for all infinity.

Q: (L) Well, that is a round robin... a circle you can't get out of!

A: And therein you have the deception! Remember, those who seek to serve self with supreme power, are doomed only to serve others who seek to serve self, and can only see that which they want to see.

Q: (L) The thought that occurs to me, as we are talking here, is that the STS pathway consists of an individual who wants to serve themselves - they are selfish and egocentric -they want to impel others to serve them; they want to enslave others; and they find ways to manipulate others to serve them. But, they end up being impelled by some higher being than they are. Because they have been tricked into believing that by so doing, they are actually drawing power to themselves through the teachings, including the popular religions which promote being "saved" by simply believing and giving up your power. And, then, you have a whole pyramid of people TAKING by trickery and deception, from others. The taker gets taken from in the end. A pyramid where all those on the bottom, the majority, have no one to take from, so they get absorbed into the next level higher, until you get to the apex and everything disappears. In the STO mode, you have those who only give. And, if they are involved with other STO persons, everyone has and no one is at the bottom or at the top, in a void. In the end, it seems like everyone ends up serving someone else anyway, and the principle is the INTENT. But in STO, it is more like a circle, a balance, no one is left without.

A: Balance, yin-yang.

Q: (L) Obviously the 33 represents the Serpent, the Medusa, and so forth...

A: You mentioned pyramid, interesting... And what is the geometric one-dimensional figure that corresponds?

Q: (L) Well, the triangle. And, if you have a triangle point up you have 3, joined to a triangle pointing down, you have 3, you have a 33. Is that something like what we are getting at here?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Is there a connection between the number 33 and the Great Pyramid in Egypt?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And what is that connection? Is it that the builders of the pyramid participated in this secret society activity?

A: Yes. And what symbol did you see in "Matrix," for Serpents and Grays?

Q: (L) You are talking about the triangle with the Serpent's head in it?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Are we talking in terms of this 33 relating to a group of "aliens," or a group of humans with advanced knowledge and abilities?

A: Either/or.

Q: (L) Is this what has been referred to in the Bramley book [Gods of Eden] as the Brotherhood of the Serpent or Snake?

A: Yes.

 

[Buddy]

I find it rather difficult to draw any line at all to 7d with what Blavatsky states in the above. And why do you promote her work so much?

I have the same difficulty, but he's already stated that he's here to rehabilitate her in some way. Thing is, B had her time and that time has passed and unless arpaxad buckles down and somehow manages to reveal some much deeper parallels and synthesis, B might wind up being put to rest permanently in the public's eye. Ain't trying to hurt anybody's feelings, I just know the difficulty of the task I'd face if I were in his shoes and I just don't have that kind of time.

 

[arpaxad]

The above claims by Blavatsky are part of the problem. It's like "I've got a secret, nah nah nah naaaaaaaaah..." and it's all about POWER - the dreaded OCCULT power.

To interpret Blavatsky in terms of her being STS, imho, is SOOOOOOOOOO missing the point.

If you haven't seen this yet, perhaps it will give you a better idea of what theosophy is/was about.

 

[rs]

The above claims by Blavatsky are part of the problem. It's like "I've got a secret, nah nah nah naaaaaaaaah..." and it's all about POWER - the dreaded OCCULT power.

To interpret Blavatsky in terms of her being STS, imho, is SOOOOOOOOOO missing the point.

If you haven't seen this yet, perhaps it will give you a better idea of what theosophy is/was about.

I'm fairly certain that Laura is familiar with what theosophy is about....

You should re-read your original quote, then Laura's comment, then your original quote.

 

[Nienna]

The above claims by Blavatsky are part of the problem. It's like "I've got a secret, nah nah nah naaaaaaaaah..." and it's all about POWER - the dreaded OCCULT power.

To interpret Blavatsky in terms of her being STS, imho, is SOOOOOOOOOO missing the point.

If you haven't seen this yet, perhaps it will give you a better idea of what theosophy is/was about.

I'm fairly certain that Laura is familiar with what theosophy is about....

You should re-read your original quote, then Laura's comment, then your original quote.

Indeed!

You say in your welcome post that you've read Wave I and II. Maybe it would help you to understand things better if you read a LOT more of Laura's books - there are many. And, in them you can get an idea of the amount of research that Laura has done in so many different areas. This is why she is so good at connecting the dots and seeing things as they are - not as she wants them to be. And, she is able to write in a way that is concise and very understandable instead of writing reams of word salad with very little substance.

It seems that you are the one missing the point being made here and, you may want to consider that you are in the There's nothing wrong with that as this forum is not for everyone, nor even most people. It would be appreciated if you would read up a bit on the topics covered here to get an idea of what we are about instead of trying to push your own ideas on us. If you are not of the same page we are, that's okay. Maybe it would be more rewarding for you to start your own blog or forum?

It still astonishes me that people come here and think that Laura doesn't have a clue. She's been researching these things since she was, what, 8 years-old?

 

[United Gnosis]

It still astonishes me that people come here and think that Laura doesn't have a clue. She's been researching these things since she was, what, 8 years-old?

Although I get the gist of what you are saying, I'd rather be mindful of such an argument. It rather sounds like an appeal to authority. Although I do see Laura as "first among equals" here - and I am bound to gratitude for her Work - this forum wouldn't exist without the primary crew, nor without the hundreds of regularly active members who also independently-or-semi-independently conduct their own research and Work. Taken together, those members' contributions add up to tens (hundreds?) of thousands of generally very mindful, constructive posts adding up to the aggregate collective wisdom of the Forum.

An appeal to the rational authority of the forum in general might thus be more reasonable than focusing on a single individual, howsoever wise that person.

Thus I'd rather ask Arpaxad, how empty is your cup? You might have a very learned background, yet by virtue of your interactions here it seems that you are not fully aligned with the Work - that is, the aim of aligning with Truth and your aim of rehabilitating Blavatsky are mutually exclusive, as the implied identification and bias of such a position necessarily pre-empt the cognitive adaptability required for a sustained growth towards Truth.

Thus I'd ask you, in the words of one of your other threads (very symbolic in terms of the green language, imho), if your attachment to B. wouldn't be "A case of obsession"? If not, then you should be able to synthetize, in your own words, the essential wisdom of B and its practical implications for applied growth in the context of the work. Otherwise, those B quotes, as above, will remain just so much new-age psychobabble, salad-shooter metaphysics, and actually undermine that Aim which you have set for yourself.

 

[obyvatel]

It still astonishes me that people come here and think that Laura doesn't have a clue. She's been researching these things since she was, what, 8 years-old?

Although I get the gist of what you are saying, I'd rather be mindful of such an argument. It rather sounds like an appeal to authority. Although I do see Laura as "first among equals" here - and I am bound to gratitude for her Work - this forum wouldn't exist without the primary crew, nor without the hundreds of regularly active members who also independently-or-semi-independently conduct their own research and Work. Taken together, those members' contributions add up to tens (hundreds?) of thousands of generally very mindful, constructive posts adding up to the aggregate collective wisdom of the Forum.

I think Nienna was responding specifically to Arpaxad's post here which was directed towards Laura and her "ignorance" about theosophy.

The above claims by Blavatsky are part of the problem. It's like "I've got a secret, nah nah nah naaaaaaaaah..." and it's all about POWER - the dreaded OCCULT power.

To interpret Blavatsky in terms of her being STS, imho, is SOOOOOOOOOO missing the point.

If you haven't seen this yet, perhaps it will give you a better idea of what theosophy is/was about.

Relevant in this context is the exchange in this thread
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,40103.0.html

where Laura clearly stated that she is familiar with Blavatsky, theosophy and their spinoff literature.

So I do not think your "appeal to authority" argument as a logical fallacy is applicable here.

 

[Neil]

So are you trying to induct us all into some theosophy group? You have a tremendous amount of energy invested in "selling" Blavatsky to the forum, pretty much every post. There is a book on the Cassiopaea recommended reading list called The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, which deals with some of Blavatsky's work and theosophy in general. While some of it has some parallels to the Cassiopaean material, it seems pretty obscure and a lot of the concepts are explained more clearly by other authors, in my opinion. When I read the book about 4 years ago, it seemed to me a somewhat watered down version of Mouravieff's Gnosis. It's like a bunch of elementary school kids wanting to talk about calculus, so they piece together a bunch of notes left over from a high school course and then try to repeat it without really knowing what they're talking about. When they actually try to do the math, it is obvious they can't actually do it because they never finished arithmetic. So when they get backed into a corner, the gems of truth from the high school class are buried under layers of subjective gloss and word salad. For me, reading theosophy is like panning for gold. You have to dig through a lot of mud in order to find the nugget, and you will only be able to recognize the nugget if you're already "initiated," so to speak. Reading Laura and the 4th way stuff is like having a "golden onion," where the nugget is already presented and the intellectual work goes into peeling back the layers to find gold of higher purity, instead of trying so hard to find the nugget in the first place.

As for the quote you brought up about the seven races and the planetary chain, this seems to be based on the Hermetic Key, which, according to the Luxor book, was written by H B Corinni, under the tutelage of a Max Theon, whose existence is a bit sketchy.

The Hermetic Key also touches briefly on the truly mysterious "eighth orb" or "Dark Satelite," the realm of the Ob and the center of powerof the opposing, "Brethren of the Shadow," which plays such an important role in the works of P B Randolf, Mme Blavatsky, and Rudolf Steiner.

Of course we know here that they are talking about the presence of 4D STS, which farms the negative impressions generated from their prison planet Earth for their own sustenance. Anyway moving on to root races and such, we have a passage about it which I doubt is worth retyping, but I'm going to do it anyway.

The Cycle Periods of the Great Life-Wave of Material and Spiritual Evolution​

One Polar Day, which is also the cycle of duration of any life-wave on our planet, is, when measured by the common years of our Earth's time, exactly 2,592,000 years.

And, although the 7 planets of our chain vary in the length of their respective life-waves, some a few thousand more and some a few thousand less, they are, on the average, all of the same duration. Hence, the great period of the life-wave, travelling once around our septenary chain of worlds, is 2,592,000 multiplied by 7 or 18,144,000 years. This is the complete circuit of 7 orbs , but the cycle, or period of the life-wave from its leaving the Earth to its reappearance or commencement is 2,592,000 less than the above, or, in other words, exactly 15,552,000 years.

The period of evolution of the 7 great rounds of humanity, and producing 7 times 7, equaling 49, root races of immortal beings (for each race contains its own immortals), is the period of the life wave passing seven times round the chain, or 127,008,000.

There are now say seven great planetary families, each family containing within itself, its numerous offshoot races. The perfected humanity, then, rests in the enjoyment of a blissful Nirvana, or "The peace of God, which passeth all understanding," for the 5oth period, that is to say the seven planetary families of our Earth have occupied 7 complete circuits of the life-wave around the chain, or 49 Polar Days. The 50th Day is the day when those purified souls enter Nirvana, as a family, and this Nirvana lasts until the human life-wave has passed round the chain in a passive state and reached the shores of our planet again, or 18,144,000 years.

After the Jubilee of Nirvana, this vast and now exalted, host of 7 planetary families' perfected souls now become, in the turn, the originators and guardians of a new and fresh race of humanity, each planetary family, or state, becoming the especial rulers of their own sphere, while their own late Angelic guardians, the 7 spirits (families of spirits) that stand before the Lord, termed Dhyan Chohans in Esoteric Buddhism, ascend still higher into more perfect spheres of creation. You will take note that each family, or new angelic planetary state of lately exalted human souls, rules the corresponding family upon Earth. Thus the first family, or that which formed the first 7 root races after their cycle, rules the first seven root races of their new creation, and so on with the others. These new races of human beings evolve and pass through the same harmonious process of evolution from spirit to matter and back again to spirit, thus completing the great cycle of necessity. The planet itself is not recreated after each eathly Nirvana, but reawakened into activity and life to pass through 7 times 7 races, or circuits of the life-wave, or 127,008,000 years.

After the period has again expired, this race of guardians also ascend to higher planes, and the second planetary family enjoys Nirvana for 18,144,000 years and then in their turn become guardians of the third's 7 families (termed one planetary family). Then the third family originate, rule and guard the 4th, [etc] until our Earth (and the planetary chain in its turn) has evolved 7 great planetary families, each family consisting of 7 rounds, and each round of 7 root races, and has also enjoyed 7 Nirvanas. This makes up the grand period of 8 times 127,008,000 years which, in its grand and complete total, equals 1,016,064,000 years of earthly time.

This period is obtained as follows: 7 periods of 127,008,000 for the 7 great planetary families, and 7 Nirvanas of 18,144,000, which make the eighth; the total eight. This great cycle, 1,016,064,000 years, is the exact term of our planet's physical existence.

The 7 great cycles and the 7 Nirvanas together constitute the eighth, and produce the sleep of death. Our sphere will then have completed the period of child bearing; old age has gradually settled upon her; she has born seven sons, and now sinks into the eighth period, sleep; the sleep of death and complete annihilation. Cohesion loosens its hold upon the molecules, and atom by atom the planet's molecules are disintegrated and dispersed into space. The solar sleep, or Nirvana, takes place, and our Sun ceases to be active for a period of 127,008,000 years, viz., a complete evolutionary cycle; and it is only when the first warm breath of new spiritual life pulsates through the spaces of Aeth that a recreation of the planetary chains commences anew. The disintegrated atoms of former worlds are reconstructed with new cosmic matter, and once more evolution, but upon a higher plane; begins its almost ceaseless round.

Note the terrible significance of the figure 8. The eighth sphere of our chain is not a visible orb, but a lifeless, dark, semi-spiritual one. It is the sphere of death, and the temporary abode of those souls, or shades, who have, through their depraved lives, lost their connection with the Divine Parent the spiritual ego that gave them birth. Yet the have bartered a glorious, divine birthright for a mess of pottage. while the enfranchised souls of their nobler brethren are urging their resistless course through the sapphire vaults and starlit realms of the Milky Way. And yet, O most esteemed and eternal brother, in the face of our eternal progress, these vast cycles and most awful, incomprehensible periods are but a few fast fleeting moments of planetary existence. The whole eras of past eternity cannot bring one second more near the end of our immortal, deathless reign.

What are we to make of this mess? There does seem to be a law of 7 which governs processes of evolution and devolution in the cosmos. This law of seven is scalable from the evolution of planets to individual work and it's various levels are detailed by Gurdjieff and Mouravieff. There does seem to be a grand cycle of some periodicity in which souls are "harvested." The Cassiopaeans have said it is 300,000 years, but who knows for sure? We also know that there are more than 7 planets in the solar system, and it is likely that the Earth is far older than 1 billion years. Radiocarbon data would put it at 4.6 billion years, but that is open to some debate. Even if it is off by a factor of 2, like the Cassiopaeans suggested with the dinosaur extinction, that would still give us 2.3 billion years. I trust science over some formula some theosophist obtained by trying to mesh Hindu world ages with the Seven Days of creation in the Bible. The thing is, the source materials are incomplete or corrupted and the people interpreting them are just guessing, really. The arithmetic students are philosophizing over how to draw an integral symbol when they don't even know what a polynomial is, to continue my analogy from earlier.

What is this passage really saying? Here is the interpretation.

The Law of Seven allows for a cyclical evolution of humanity if conscious efforts are applied to attempt to rise to the level of the Divine. If the effort is applied consistently, spirituality increases like a helix with many loops, each wind around the spiral bringing you closer to the divine knowledge you seek. Periodically, some sort of wave comes through the solar system, changing the energy state of the spiral, which allows some people to ascend to a higher realm if they've acquired enough knowledge. In the context of the Diagram of Everything Living, man number 7 becomes angel number 1. Angel number 1 bears some responsibility for helping man number 1, 2, and 3 who have the possibility and desire for esoteric evolution to advance. STO beings advance by putting someone on the stair step behind you. Be warned that there are beings out there who oppose this evolution and may try to destroy you.

That's really all this article says. The other 80% of the length is useless crap. The rest of it is cross-conceptualizations and wiseacring with high-sounding language. All of this focus on root races and rulership betrays the Theosophists' obsession with "Occult Power." It is really hard to see how the quote you mentioned, and the source material on which it is based, really has much to do with 7D, except to say that the seven densities perhaps represent the law of Seven on the ultimate level, and that if you keep perfecting your soul through enough of these cycles, you will eventually reach level 7, which is completion. Even so, I am forcing myself to explain the article in terms of things I learned from Gurdjieff, Mouravieff, and Laura, not Blavatsky. This book would be almost incomprehensible to me without them, unless I wished to simply parrot the ideas, fooling others into thinking I know esoteric calculus.

I could probably tease more out of the book now that I have studied more, but it is full of theosophist writings just like this and there is really no reason for me to dissect someone's dated "salad shooter metaphysics," as Laura likes to call it, to find out things I already know. This is my opinion, but it is certainly true for me. I think this is why you are getting a cold shoulder from the forum when trying to promote theosophy to us. Since this book is on the recommended reading list, I assume Laura has read it, and I often wondered why it was there, unless it is a manual of how not to teach esoteric principles to humanity. For those of us who have tried to do some work to understand what is objectively real at our plane of existence, going back through ones subjective meanderings that are 80% fluff to determine what they might have understood from sources that weren't really clear to begin with is kind of like a waste of energy. In that context, Theosophy is a psuedoesoteric system with nothing to offer us.

 

[arpaxad]

Oh, I get it. It might be some kind of "demonic" conspiracy! :) Hope to meet you on the level. May the Force be with you.

 

[Arwenn]

Oh, I get it. It might be some kind of "demonic" conspiracy! :) Hope to meet you on the level. May the Force be with you.

Have you read Neil's response above? He has presented a very cogent analysis of why it there are better authors and books on the Work, and this is all you have by way of reply? Have you read any of Gurdjieff's work and other books from the recommended reading list? It seems to me (& I could be way off) but you are sold on Blavatsky and your mind is closed off to anything else.

 

[Buddy]

I agree with obyvatel's statement that appeal to authority in this case is not an issue. I also think any 'obsession' with Blavatsky may just be a symptom of a more fundamental identification, obsession or issue of some sort. IMO, there's pattern-sync between Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Blavatsky and Walt Whitman, and arpaxad's first siggy here was a phrase from Whitman's By Blue Ontario's Shore..."I myself make the only growth by which I can be appreciated," and we all know our siggy's represent something meaningful to us, whatever that is.

That siggy was a window into another world for me, so to speak. It leads to literature by authors with their own metaphysical inclinations and a sort of pretense that, paradoxically, they are not involved in the creation and development of their own work. The clues were there from the beginning.

In a nutshell, a major issue with B's work, as I see it, is in how someone can know, think, believe, or formulate something and call it truth while pretending they were not, or are not, involved in the making of it. Take "noumena or noumenon." I don't know if it exists, but B was doing the same thing Kant's followers were doing when they insisted we believe noumenon is unknowable but conveniently leave out how they know that. That's a sort of logical fallacy as I see it. "Disconnect from Author" is a core thesis where arpaxad, Whitman and Blavatsky (even Samuel Taylor Coleridge) intersect, IMO.

The quote below is an excerpt from Whitman's Drama of Consensus, by Kerry C. Larson. I'll bold the part in the quote below to show how I see the relationship between the disconnect and a mechanical process that results, when the original intention was to produce something transcendental. Nothing wrong with 'mechanical processes', as such, the Cosmos depends on them to hold things together, but they shouldn't be presented as something other than they are, IMO.

...for a poet who so passionately believes that "greatness is the other word for development," such calls to presence are bound to seem especially melodramatic or unearned. Although Whitman could declare, sententiously enough, that "I myself make the only growth by which I can be appreciated" (CRE, p.340). it is far more common for him to aver that the only possible validation for development is that which develops itself. Celebrating a discourse that "grows purely of itself" may be taken as Whitman's variant on the Keatsian imperative that the "creative must create itself." What counts for growth in such cases is of course its severance from the intentional designs of the author.

In the process of decrying the "gaggery and gilt" of shopworn poeticisms, Whitman comments in the 1855 Preface that "the profit of rhyme is that it drops seeds of a sweeter and more luxuriant rhyme, and of uniformity that it conveys itself into its own roots in the ground out of sight. The rhyme and uniformity of perfect poems show the free growth of metrical laws and bud from them as unerringly and as loosely as lilacs or roses on a bush...and shed the perfume impalpable to form." (PW 2:443).

As a number of scholars have remarked, this concise summary also shows the free influence of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. In 1847, Whitman reviewed a collection of Coleridge's literary criticism where the aspiring poet was likely to have come across such dicta as "the organic form...shapes itself as it develops itself from within, and the fullness of its development is one and the same as the perfection of its outward form."

In this typically genetic correspondence between form and content, process and product, cause and effect, only the author is anomalous. Pater, setting the stage for future criticism, was distressed by this elision of identity and charged that Coleridge's naturalism was no less deterministic than the mechanical theories of creation it was meant to supplant. "The associative act in art or poetry," he observes disapprovingly, "is made to look like some blindly organic process of assimilation."

Much to his notoriety, however, Whitman considers this a process that can never be assimilative enough, and what Pater deplores as aesthetic abdication Whitman takes as a central command in his calling.


Screaming electric, the atmosphere using,
At random glancing, each as I notice absorbing,
Swiftly on, but a little while alighting,
Curious envelop'd messages delivering,
Sparkles hot, seed etheral down in the dirt dropping,
Myself unknowing, my commission obeying, to question
it never daring,
To ages and ages yet the growth of the seed leaving,
To troops out of the war arising, they the tasks
I have set promulging,
So I pass, a little time vocal, visible, contrary,
Afterward a melodious echo, passionately bent for,
(death making me really undying,)
The best of me then when no longer visible.
("So Long," CRE, p.505)


Whitman's Drama of Consensus, by Kerry C. Larson, Chapter 4, Embryos and Skeletons, p. 85-6

 

[Nienna]

It still astonishes me that people come here and think that Laura doesn't have a clue. She's been researching these things since she was, what, 8 years-old?

Although I get the gist of what you are saying, I'd rather be mindful of such an argument. It rather sounds like an appeal to authority. Although I do see Laura as "first among equals" here - and I am bound to gratitude for her Work - this forum wouldn't exist without the primary crew, nor without the hundreds of regularly active members who also independently-or-semi-independently conduct their own research and Work. Taken together, those members' contributions add up to tens (hundreds?) of thousands of generally very mindful, constructive posts adding up to the aggregate collective wisdom of the Forum.

I think Nienna was responding specifically to Arpaxad's post here which was directed towards Laura and her "ignorance" about theosophy.

The above claims by Blavatsky are part of the problem. It's like "I've got a secret, nah nah nah naaaaaaaaah..." and it's all about POWER - the dreaded OCCULT power.

To interpret Blavatsky in terms of her being STS, imho, is SOOOOOOOOOO missing the point.

If you haven't seen this yet, perhaps it will give you a better idea of what theosophy is/was about.

Relevant in this context is the exchange in this thread
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,40103.0.html

where Laura clearly stated that she is familiar with Blavatsky, theosophy and their spinoff literature.

So I do not think your "appeal to authority" argument as a logical fallacy is applicable here.

Yes, this is what was on my mind, too, at the time. Thank you for posting it obyvatel.

UG, I am sorry if I confused you and hope that obyvatel's post has helped a bit.

 

[seek10]

Oh, I get it. It might be some kind of "demonic" conspiracy! :) Hope to meet you on the level. May the Force be with you.

Why don't you take little break from "selling" theosophy and read other parts of the forum/Laura's books to see whether this forum suits you or not. "Sacred cows" will always arouse emotions that will muddy the understanding. Identifying with a tree in a forest probably is not a good idea.