History of the Theosophical Movement

[United Gnosis]

Hmmm, after reading through this thread I feel like the OP is imposing a lot of information on me.. I can't comment where I stand on the information being posted, but you seem to think that constantly shoving it down the throats of other's might finally break through to them or something?

(snip)

I'm not arguing the legitimacy of the information here, but I feel taking other's into consideration is more important than proving you're right..

Well, at the very least the discussion now contained within this thread, can arguably be expected to be on topic of "The History of the Theosophical Movement". Those who are interested can read/contribute, which is the proper way the forum is meant to work. If Arpaxad contains his lengthy theosophical-related quotes to such clearly labeled threads, that would go a long way in feeling that he indeed is external considering.

Now, as to your right not to be offended, and whether determining what is right should come second to external considering (esp. when the discussion is limited to its relevant thread(s), that is a whole another can of worms...

 

[Buddy]

You don't have to read what you don't want. Have you learned to control your intellectual center enough not to get into material that produces a vomiting response (unless you think it's healing)? It's a basic safeguard akin to that a child learns when he is taught not to put everything that he picks up into his mouth (even when he is at home!).

Up to now, arpaxad, I thought you were doing pretty good and I appreciate the additional info and commentary, so I can only suspect that you risked coming across as ironic (see the bolded sentence above) because you thought you had a good analogy to work with? Let's take a look because there's another reason for this mention.

A child at the age in which he will vomit by putting the wrong thing in his mouth is still doing what he is supposed (expected) to do. Touching, feeling, seeing, hearing, tasting is how the child experiences life and builds the foundation of his knowledge and understanding that will serve him for the remainder of his life. That he might occasionally vomit is one thing, but to prevent permanent damage and a possibly fatal event is a responsibility that lies with a parent, leader, teacher, etc and not with the child necessarily.

One might now say "...but he's grown, he should know...", to which I might respond "...so what? Does that not suggest the analogy was maybe inappropriate in the first place?" You did claim about a 20 year head start in this stuff, no? Or did I misunderstand an earlier reference to someone else?

Be careful of "projection" and potential accusations of such. It's very difficult for some people to see themselves on their own (including me) and to not realize they're doing what they say others are doing and thereby implying a value judgement of some sort that reflexively applies to them.

And before we leave behind the child and his gaining of experience as foundation of future knowledge, I'd like to mention an interest of mine: the beginnings of this stuff and the life experiences that preceded the formulation of the specific secret teachings and compelled the creation of "Theosophy" to contain and disseminate it.

If there is anything wrong in this post, please bring it to my attention, otherwise a continuation of an emotionally neutral discussion with more focus on this rather difficult subject matter and gaps in understanding would seem to be the most appropriate way to go and I think that would be grand!

 

[Neil]

This is interesting, indeed. I have not paid much attention to the kind of detail Neil is referring to (perhaps because I do have a slight aversion to snakes, too). I remember something where she was referring to Eliphas Levi and his idea of the "serpent." May it be that HPB was simply attempting to tie all the pieces together from her contemporary occultists and to show them that there is something larger underlying all their stuff?

Perhaps in a very theoretical and obscure way, like the rest of her writing.

Bottom line: Whether HPB knew about the "Lizzies" or not, or whether she knew of their connection to the powers that be, other than on the symbolic and astral (higher-densities) planes, is unclear to me.

You would have to reference what she has to say about the Eighth Sphere and brethren of the shadow, to be sure, but it is likely all very theoretical, which was one of Gurdjieff's shortcomings as well.

FWIW. So far, I am not fully convinced that HPB equates the serpent always with "serpent-like beings"; perhaps, she does acknowledge it as a symbol, which may have been why the "serpentine beings" have acquired this shape to present themselves to humanity in the first place - that is, I am not convinced that the worship of the Serpent (the Cosmic Serpent; the Milky Way galaxy, etc.) did not come before the "serpent-looking dudes" took over the planet.

The thing is, there are exoteric, mesoteric, and esoteric levels of reality to the serpent phenomenon which are all equally valid. On one level, you have these cosmic serpents dueling in the sky which bring physical destruction down on the planet. This is merely a description of dust trails left in the sky after the cometary bombardments which periodically destroy civilization on our planet. Blavatsky touches on it very, very obliquely in the quote I pulled from the Secret Doctrine when she is speaking of planetary formation. If it is true that the cosmic environment reflects the human experiential cycle, and that these catastrophes come when the "Mandate of Heaven" is lost on Earth, then you could say that this cosmic serpent is a form of regeneration. It destroys the old world when it becomes too corrupt for spiritual evolution. Most of what people study as the esoteric meaning behind the mystery of the serpents is merely a mythicizing of a fairly mundane astronomical process. These great serpents in the sky become gods, which can later evolve into logi as mystery cults are developed.

Moving on to the mesoteric meaning, my studies would suggest that there are aliens which have a reptilian form which also engage in periodic destructions. Consider this

Q: (L) How were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed and the other cities of the plain? And by whom?
A: Nuclear; EM pulse. Who else?
Q: (L) The Lizzies?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Why?
A: To implant fear and obedience.
Q: (L) Weren't the Sodom and Gomorrans really evil and bad doing sodomy and Gomorrahy?
A: That is a deception of history.

If the Cassiopaeans are to be believed, we have these serpents flying around and in ships which are basically manufactured out of impressions(hydrogens imperceptible to materialist chemistry and physics, if we want to tie it to Gudjieff), originating from other planets and living in different dimensions. These beings apparently liked to start cults which would feed them psychic energy and had an affinity for gold. John Keel's The Eighth Tower discusses how such 4D aliens may interact with Earth. Obviously such beings could easily pass themselves off as gods, offering all sorts of knowledge, medicine, and special powers that would be enough to create masses of believers everywhere. But they don't want the people becoming too smart, so while they may reveal profound things, it will always be with some sort of twist to make sure that no one ever really gets the complete picture. Such a race would leave behind a core brotherhood of acolytes to preserve the tradition which can be used to keep esoterically minded members of humanity occupied with something that is close, but not quite the truth, and keeps them going around in circles; believing they are steadily prying deeper knowledge from secret texts, when in reality they are caught up in the infinite loop of the deception. Because these serpents possess advanced technology, they are viewed by some as an uplifting force for mankind, while those who know their true nature recognize them as temptresses. Now these 4D beings exist as vibrations more than physical form, and the human consciousness sees them as reptilian because that is how their vibrational signature is interpreted by the human brain. I think our senses are an aid here. 2D reptilians are generally seen as scary or cold, and there must be a reason why these 4D beings are perceived this way.

Moving on to the esoteric level, well...the Cassiopaeans have talked about Transient Passengers which exist in 6D and seem to be responsible for creating various races, including humans. 6D is described as a realm where the polarities of STO and STS exist in perfect balance. 6D beings seem to be responsible for maintaining the good/evil duality of the Absolute. In this perfectly balanced real, all kinds of creatures could be "infused" including the serpents we just spoke of. So the form and essence of these serpents is dreamed up in this plane and this STS aspect of that reality plugs into the Lizzies' social memory complex and allows them to grow toward the divine, though wrathful names of God. I'm sure Blavatsky speaks of this in a more generalized fashion, as she is fond of these very cerebral esoteric expositions.

You have to be able to juxtapose all three levels and understand the objective truth of each one of them to be able to approach the question of the serpents intelligently, I think. Does Blavatsky have this? I think you could probably say that she does, although it is more theoretical and will take her at least 10 pages to tell you what I just told you in 2 or 3, and she will beat around the bush 7 times without ever quite coming to the heart of it. I don't really like that. You could say that esotericists in the past had to be intentionally obscure in order to avoid angering the authorities and preserve the "underground stream." I can't see where this was the case in Blavatsky's time, unless she really did make some kind of dark oath with the Brotherhood of the Serpent like these Luxor cranks claim she did. You had a very strong emotional reaction when Laura broached this subject in the other thread about 7D, which I think is overly dismissive of the subtleties of what may have been going on with her, which I'll get to in a minute.

Before I get to that, I want to talk about symbols just a little bit, which Blavatsky seems to be fond of as well. I have already discussed how the Ouroboros could symbolize regeneration because it is a pictorial mythical representation of a cosmic process, which has spiritual ramifications because of its extinctive nature. This is like "esoterica 101" and the interpretation is valid on the exoteric level of the serpent mystery. Taking this symbol in context of my mesoteric interpretation would suggest that Ouroboros refers to the Serpent Brotherhood's unending quest to attain infinite knowledge, which is the only the possibility for those who are adepts in Lizzie inspired systems. You go around and around integrating ideas of greater and greater complexity, but never quite getting to the heart of the matter which will set you free. On the esoteric level, it probably does symbolize something like the descent of spirit into matter and back again, and I would propose this is the fate of committed STS beings. They seem to attain a certain degree of consciousness and complexity, just to reach a certain critical mass where they fall into ultimate depravity and "implode," having to start all over again. They never penetrate the higher realms of true spirituality. You could argue that this could represent STO in a different way to some degree as well, but I would question the choice of the serpent to represent this process. In the context of what we've discussed here, it seems to be a fundamentally STS symbol.

With them it was purely physiological and phallic; and no amount of casuistical reasoning on the part of the Roman Catholic Church can give it another meaning, once that the mystery language is well studied, and that the Hebrew scrolls are read numerically. The Occultists know that the serpent, the Naga, and the dragon have each a septenary meaning; that the Sun, for instance, was the astronomical and cosmic emblem of the two contrasted lights, and the two serpents of the Gnostics, the good and the evil one; they also know that, when generalised, the conclusions of both science and theology present two most ridiculous extremes.

Here we have the serpents representing the Law of 7, which in my opinion, is a cross conceptualization of three levels of the Ouroboros that I spoke of. The Lizzes represent a devolutionary process even though they seem quite evolved, and their knowledge could be seen to uplift a primitive society out of barbarism, but it does so at the cost of basically locking them into devolutionary process. Furthermore, such beings are a legitimate part of the balance of positive and negative energies which sustains the universe, and utilizing the "catalyst" that being faced with the reality of such terrible entities provides one may act as a springboard toward one's own evolution into higher realms. Mouravieff's representation of the Law of 7 resembles a helix or spring, and it represents how conscious efforts to move upward can occur in a more or less harmonious cyclical manner if efforts to achieve the aim are consistently maintained, as well as how falls are not final and happen in stages over time to give one a chance to understand and correct their behaviors. Cyclical processes maintain the balance of the universe much better than ones that run away linearly toward a final end state. It is easy to see how this may have been stylized as good and evil serpents, especially since the process on our planet seems to have quite a bit to do with actual serpent-like beings, but I see it has another cross-conceptualization, fundamentally.

So where does Blavatsky fit into all of this? Here is my opinion on her. Prior to her Isis days, the Brotherhood of the Serpent which is responsible for guarding spiritual doctrines of the Lizzies, whomever they may be, saw a rising tide of inquiry into spirituality and an investigation into phenomenon which may reveal the man behind the curtain. Obviously this was a problem, and the control system had to be modified to keep anyone from getting too far. Certain incomplete/corrupted doctrines were released that would satisfy the thirst for inquiry. This may have initially been done through academic or mediumistic means, it was probably a combination. Groups were formed to disseminate these ideas and Blavatsky was initiated into one of them. Now one problem the Dark Side has is maintaining people in its thrall that are smart enough to be useful, while dumb enough to keep believing the lies and not be a threat. They seem to have a hard time keeping people with what could be considered a "quality intelligence" around. Blavatsky was probably one of these people and she was a good little pawn for awhile. I think at some point, she got a glimpse of some "dark hand" that was guiding the people she associated with and she also probably came to the realization that they were all puffers. So she ran off to India in search of what she considered a true teaching. It would not surprise me if she and Gurdjieff crossed paths in Tibet in terms of some of the traditions that they studied. This would explain why she was suddenly so attacked by the other Occultists, there was a possibility of her discovering something that might be a threat to the Matrix. She also was creating a rival system that cut into their profits, and that probably angered them whether it was true or not. However, a seed had been planted in her by the Brotherhood, and she wasn't really doing the Work as we understand it. She probably thought she could fix occultism with her obscure Buddhist texts, some ego/power hooks were applied, and she got taken for a bit of a ride. It's hard to say what happened in Tibet, perhaps she met a "Gentle Friend" a la Theodore Illion or something else, but the results of her work had a profoundly different effect than Gurdjieff's. She seems to have gotten more obscure, and theoretical, even though it is clear she studied a lot, while Gurdjieff came away with a system that was very clear and more practical overall. In this way she was "dealt with" and her system "neutralized."

You are obviously some type of Theosophist, whether or not you have any "official stature" in the order, and I am curious why you didn't answer Sitting's question. If you have studied Blavatsky as extensively as you appear to, and understand her diffuse texts, I think you could show what Blavatsky knows, what you know, and how you relate to the Work as explained by her by addressing it. You would much rather me pick out another passage from the Secret Doctrine and we could go on about "well she touched on this, and she probably knows that, and might address this," but these posts consume a lot of intellectual energy for me and Blavatsky is not one of my primary areas of interest. Her name just seems to crop up when doing this type of research. I have another project I need to be working on.

Finally, taken with a large grain of salt, I will present a closing quote that hopefully won't send your idolization of Blavatsky into overdrive.

Q: (L) Okay. Now, I would like to know, for the sake of all the Theosophists around the world, what was the source of the information in the book "Isis Unveiled" by Helena Blavatsky?
A: Orions STS and STO. 6th Density.
Q: (L) So, her information was from both sides? And it is up to the reader to figure out which is which?
A: Good idea.

So is this true? Do we believe it? Does our analysis of her "signal to noise ratio" settle the question?

 

[Windmill knight]

There's something that bothers me about this bit of 'Theosophical teaching' that was quoted earlier on this thread:

The true philosopher, the student of the Esoteric Wisdom, entirely loses sight of personalities, dogmatic beliefs and special religions. Moreover, Esoteric philosophy reconciles all religions, strips every one of its outward, human garments, and shows the root of each to be identical with that of every other great religion.

At first it sounds all good and noble, but the fact is that it is making a huge assumption there: that all great religions have a hard core of truth. And because it is truth, it is the same for all. But in reality, the truth factor in most major religions is so weak, and so mixed up with lies, that religions are better described as myths and fairy tales that keep people away from the truth, rather than hiding treasures of knowledge for the esoteric student to discover.

To make an analogy, this is like those people who insist that there is always good in everyone, even if we don't see it right away, and that people just need a chance to be understood. Again, initially it sounds like a noble and sensible attitude, because it seeks to unite all of humanity in their shared and basic goodness. But unfortunately, that is simply not the nature of things. Some people are plain evil and psychopathic, and as long as we don't acknowledge that, we will not learn the truth about human nature (or natures).

In short, what we need is critical evaluation of our sources, and for what I've read so far, that is not what the Theosophists did. As Laura quoted from Redford:

In all these imagined cases none of the material initially prompting the questions has in any way undergone a prior evaluation as to how historical it is! And any scholar who exempts any part of his sources from critical evaluation runs the risk of invalidating some or all of his conclusions.

 

[Windmill knight]

Arpaxad, I'm curious, did you read 'Secret Tibet' and 'Darkness over Tibet' by T. Illion? If so, what did you think about the philosophical ideas and criticisms to several 'esoteric schools' that appear in them?

 

[BHelmet]

We seem to be looking at Blavatsky in terms of what she wrote in one book in a vacuum without considering the surrounding social, historical and philosophical contexts. I think a lot of light can be shed by widening the scope of the investigation: by looking at her life and times as well as her associates.

It is interesting and perhaps a bit odd that she co-founded Theosophical society in 1875 but Isis Unveiled was not published until 1877 and the Secret Doctrine published in 1888. She did not start the Theosophical Society alone, and this is where it gets interesting. Henry Steele Olcott was the co-founder. And who was he? Among other things he was one of only 3 people on the commission to investigate the assassination of Lincoln. (the Warren Commission, or 911 Commission of his day)(and we know those were not about finding the truth) Olcott was a US military Colonel, an 'investigator' for the Dept of the Navy (home of ONI) specializing in fraud and a lawyer. Strange bedfellows, neh? There ARE some implications in that pairing.

Anyway I also stumbled across a FABULOUS scholarly paper comparing Blavatsky and Gurdjieff called Western Esoteric Teachers in Parallel. Here is the link below. Just be forewarned to brace any stray sacred cows for impact. There are plenty of random shots taken by G at B and evidence that G somewhat borrowed and played off of B as well, even though they never met. I found this very enriching and enlightening.

A few choice snippets:

This article is concerned with the largely unexamined interrelations between the biographies (both factual and mythological), public personas, and teachings of Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891) and George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff (c.1866-1949).

Gurdjieff’s Repudiation of Theosophy and a Consideration of Theosophy’s Influence on his Teachings

......Gurdjieff makes other remarks, all disparaging, about Theosophy throughout his writings, which were no doubt designed to promote his own method over that of Theosophy. In his pamphlet The Herald of Coming Good (1933) he claims to have spent six months with “people giving themselves up to various “woeful” ideas in these spheres of quasi-human knowledge, which in different epochs, bore different names, and which today are called “occultism,” “theosophism,” “spiritualism.” He refers to the groups that concerned themselves with these „spheres‟ as “workshops-for-the-perfection-of-psychopathism.” In relation to members of these groups he claims to have studied the “various manifestations in the waking state of the psyche of these trained and freely moving “Guinea Pigs,” allotted to me by Destiny for my experiments.”53 In a similar vein, in Beelzebub’s Tales To His Grandson (1950) he refers to Theosophy as a “pseudo-teaching” that is only a means for the further obscuring of the already obscured psyche of human beings. Later in the book he defines Theosophists as specialists in “catching fish in muddy waters.”54

Gurdjieff’s Utilisation of Theosophical Teachings and Movement

Although distinct similarities can be found between Theosophical teachings and the teachings of Gurdjieff, one must acknowledge the possibility that both simply drew on common esoteric currents prominent at that time in Russia. Although it is more than likely that some of Gurdjieff‟s ideas derived from the modern Theosophical movement, it is difficult to argue definitively for a direct relationship between the two forms of teaching. What is clear, however, is that Gurdjieff used the popularity of Theosophy for his own purposes. Indeed he said to a new pupil in 1914, [y]ou are acquainted with occult literature… and so I will refer to the formula you know from the Emerald Tablets, „As above, so below.‟ It is easy to start to build the foundation of our discussion from this… I begin with the occult formula because I am speaking to you.

Certainly it was in Gurdjieff‟s interest to use Theosophical language and concepts to garnish his teachings, because he could then define himself in a way that was acceptable and attractive in Russia at the time. He admits in The Herald of Coming Good that his teachings interested people “preoccupied with every kind of “nonsense,” otherwise known under such names as “occultism,” “theosophism”… and so on” and that he thrived in this environment: I directed all my capacities and attention to coming into contact with people belonging to one or other of these vast organizations… my reputation… became that of a great “maestro” in all that comprised supernatural knowledge.

After all, when formulating his teachings in Russia, Gurdjieff probably considered Theosophists, and most likely disillusioned Theosophists, as his target audience.

Gurdjieff’s Pupils with Ties to Theosophy
Indeed some of Gurdjieff‟s closest pupils had strong ties to Theosophy. In fact this leads to Webb wondering why so much energy has gone into research for the sources of Gurdjieff‟s system. He concludes that Gurdjieff‟s cosmology was a creation of the times, probably assembled by Gurdjieff, “although with the help of friends from what are really the obvious sources.” Perhaps the most notable example is Pyotr Demianovich Ouspensky (1878-1947), one of Gurdjieff‟s earliest and most famous pupils, who, for seven years from 1907, researched and wrote about occult and Theosophical ideas. In 1913, two years before he met Gurdjieff, Ouspensky went on a Blavatsky-like search for esoteric knowledge in the East, staying for six weeks in Adyar, the headquarters of the Theosophical Society. There, Ouspensky spoke with Annie Besant and was admitted into the inner circle but ultimately returned to Russia discontented with Theosophy. Upon his return he joined the St Petersburg Theosophical Society but regarded members as “sheep,” and the „inner circle‟ as even “bigger sheep,” believing that it was hopeless for them to develop “higher faculties.” It is interesting to consider in this context Ouspensky‟s In Search of the Miraculous, which is the most popular account of Gurdjieff‟s teachings and thus dominates the way these teachings are generally understood. The book has a strong Theosophical tone and method throughout, being purely theoretical with no practical component. In this way it could easily be compared with The Secret Doctrine. It may well be worth questioning how much Gurdjieff is read through Theosophical glasses, thanks to Ouspensky‟s In Search of the Miraculous.


Conclusion
This exploration into the lives, personas, claims and teachings of Blavatsky and Gurdjieff has revealed a number of parallels. This is no surprise considering that Gurdjieff formulated his ideas and established his persona as a spiritual teacher at a time and place where Theosophy was at the height of its popularity, and the bedazzling figure of Blavatsky loomed large. Certainly it was in Gurdjieff‟s interest to use recognisable Theosophical terminology, and don a Blavatsky-like image, when he began his role as a spiritual teacher in Russia in the early twentieth century. In this way he could define himself in a way that was not just acceptable, but highly attractive, to his target audience; those familiar with, and ultimately disillusioned by, Theosophy.

http://openjournals.library.usyd.edu.au/index.php/LA/article/viewFile/5051/5756

 

[sitting]

I found it impossible to read through the Secret Doctrine by Blavatsky.

He claims all her major works are based on Tantric texts -- specifically the Kalachakra. It's one of 4 classes of Anuttarayoga tantra. In that sense, it is not unique. But it's the one she found. All 4 classes are acknowledged to be the "highest" form of tantra. (This is also where Tummo, inner heat yoga comes from btw.)

The Tibetan consensus is that Blavatsky understood this tantric material in its deepest form. This has to be acknowledged. Endorsements have come from previous Panchen Lamas -- and all the way up to the present Dalai Lama. This much is clear.

I find that hard to believe considering I read some of Alexandra David-Neel's works ...

Alexandra David-Neel is an outstanding explorer/scholar who's able to converse with clarity -- without resorting to mumbo jumbo. But this is something Blavatsky is unable to do, in my opinion. Which always leads me to doubt those that claim revelatory experiences from her books.

Regarding my post, it's my understanding at this moment. But as I like to say: "I could be wrong."

I believe if you take that comment to heart, I mean really really to heart, it can be quite liberating. You're no longer defensive because there's nothing to defend.

(Just imagine for a moment Arpaxad having that frame of mind.)

As for the subject (Theosophy, Blavatsky or Bhagavad-Gita) I will be passing them by henceforth. I looked at them long ago -- and moved them aside. "Interesting but ... " was my reaction then. To put it bluntly, this current thread has been a major distraction for me. Both energy & time. I know I was the one who chose to be distracted. But no more.

FWIW.

 

[sitting]

oops

 

[Laura]

As for the subject (Theosophy, Blavatsky or Bhagavad-Gita) I will be passing them by henceforth. I looked at them long ago -- and moved them aside. "Interesting but ... " was my reaction then. To put it bluntly, this current thread has been a major distraction for me. Both energy & time. I know I was the one who chose to be distracted. But no more.

FWIW.

Yeah. Been there, done that.

If Arpaxad wishes to participate in the foci of this forum, he is welcome to do so, but continuing to attempt to "teach" a line that the owners of the forum do not find useful, will not endorse, nor waste time refuting, will result in a posting ban.

 

[sitting]

Alexandra David-Neel is ...

For the record:

Alexandra David-Neel passed away in 1969, at age 101.
Madame Blavatsky died in 1891. She was 59.

FWIW.

 

[luke wilson]

I don't know if it is possible to talk to arpaxad without him throwing out more of the same. Starting another thread with a similar topic, proceeding as if he is operating in a vacuum and essentially ignoring everyone else. He is quite unemotional given the overwhelming resistance he has received to pretty much all he has said, which I find to be interesting. Only interesting since most would exhibit some sort of emotional outburst.

What does he want? What is he after? Why does he persist so relentlessly? Arpaxad, without changing course or at least attempting a new strategy, the result is inevitable, at least in this domain... Maybe you can understand that? If you are looking for students or people to listen to what you have to say and accept it, there are surely people out there who would me more receptive. You can save yourself the pain of rejection, if you are so unwilling to change, by simply seeking out a more receptive audience...

 

[Laura]

For the record:

Alexandra David-Neel passed away in 1969, at age 101.
Madame Blavatsky died in 1891. She was 59.

FWIW.

Sounds like HPB wasn't really bringing home the esoteric bacon.

 

[clerck de bonk]

For the record:

Alexandra David-Neel passed away in 1969, at age 101.
Madame Blavatsky died in 1891. She was 59.

FWIW.

Sounds like HPB wasn't really bringing home the esoteric bacon.

Ain't that the truth!

 

[Buddy]

We seem to be looking at Blavatsky in terms of what she wrote in one book in a vacuum without considering the surrounding social, historical and philosophical contexts. I think a lot of light can be shed by widening the scope of the investigation: by looking at her life and times as well as her associates.

I agree. Expanding the view to the boundaries of personal contexts and then looking at the external historical context is very useful. It also seems to connect with the idea of the usefulness of exoteric texts related to a subject in question. And that seems connected to what WM reminded us about "roots", I think, and why I was primarily interested in 'beginnings.'

Bottom line for me, here, is that by debating Theosophy inside Theosophy, one potentially loses oneself in the deception that the C's referred to in that session excerpt Laura posted somewhere upthread.


--------------------------------

I don't know if it is possible to talk to arpaxad without him throwing out more of the same. Starting another thread with a similar topic, proceeding as if he is operating in a vacuum and essentially ignoring everyone else. He is quite unemotional given the overwhelming resistance he has received to pretty much all he has said, which I find to be interesting. Only interesting since most would exhibit some sort of emotional outburst.

What does he want? What is he after? Why does he persist so relentlessly?

Those observations and questions occured to me too. Going by the choice of topic titles and my impressions, I suspect just setting a stage or platform for the public to land on to find 'Blavatsky rehabilitated' when they search the web for this stuff. But that's just a guess.

Within my time here, there was a poster that was doing this sort of thing about another subject or person's work and rarely if ever responded to replies or replied very selectively. Can't remember what that subject was, though, but the pattern of activity is similar enough for me to recall it.

 

[BHelmet]

Another brief contextual thought: Blavatsky's time was the time of the industrial revolution. HUGE social change and degradation of quality of life and loss of meaning for a lot people which created a fertile ground for the development of personal spiritual seeking. It was the beginning of the mechanistic and technological era, and the era of the robber barons, child labor, police cracking the skulls of labor organizers, the rise of populism...a major turning point in human history. All of this created an acute spiritual and moral void ripe to be filled by anything and everything new and different that perhaps somehow explained what was happening, or at least was a distraction from the prevailing social, economic and political upheaval. Enter Blavatsky.