Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The purpose of this book is exactly expressed in its title, "THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY," and needs but few words of explanation. It is not a complete or exhaustive text-book of Theosophy, but only a key to unlock the door that leads to the deeper study. It traces the broad outlines of the Wisdom Religion, and explains its fundamental principles; meeting, at the same time, the various objections raised by the average Western enquirer, and endeavouring to present unfamiliar concepts in a form as simple and in language as clear as possible. That it should succeed in making Theosophy intelligible without mental effort on the part of the reader, would be too much to expect; but it is hoped that the obscurity still left is of the thought not of the language, is due to depth not to confusion. To the mentally lazy or obtuse, Theosophy must remain a riddle; for in the world mental as in the world spiritual each man must progress by his own efforts. The writer cannot do the reader's thinking for him, nor would the latter be any the better off if such vicarious thought were possible. The need for such an exposition as the present has long been felt among those interested in the Theosophical Society and its work, and it is hoped that it will supply information, as free as possible from technicalities, to many whose attention has been awakened, but who, as yet, are merely puzzled and not convinced.
Some care has been taken in disentangling some part of what is true from what is false in Spiritualistic teachings as to the post-mortem life, and to showing the true nature of Spiritualistic phenomena. Previous explanations of a similar kind have drawn much wrath upon the writer's devoted head; the Spiritualists, like too many others, preferring to believe what is pleasant rather than what is true, and becoming very angry with anyone who destroys an agreeable delusion. For the past year Theosophy has been the target for every poisoned arrow of Spiritualism, as though the possessors of a half truth felt more antagonism to the possessors of the whole truth than those who had no share to boast of.
Very hearty thanks are due from the author to many Theosophists who have sent suggestions and questions, or have otherwise contributed help during the writing of this book. The work will be the more useful for their aid, and that will be their best reward. — H. P. B.
From a 1947 issue, which includes a rarely seen letter of HPB.
MADAM BLAVATSKY - A TRIBUTE
Manly Palmer Hall
When any thoughtful and fair-minded person is confronted with a book like Priestess of the Occult, by Gertrude Marvin Williams, he is likely to feel a genuine sympathy for a person so unfairly and vindictively attacked. It seems rather cruel and unnecessary to set about a systematic process of tearing down the life and work of a distinguished woman who is not alive to defend herself, and most of whose personal friends and associates have also passed on.
Madam Blavatsky was subjected to constant persecution during the year when she was establishing and expanding the Society which she formed. But she had the wisdom and skill to defend the principles for which she stood, often by means little short of miraculous. Perhaps, then, it is not entirely coincidental that just at the time I decided to write this little tribute to her memory, a copy of a letter pertinent to the subject, written by H.P.B. to a personal friend on July 5th 1890, came into my possession. As I am not sure that the contents of this private correspondence has been published, it seems appropriate to quote several extracts which are more to the point than anything that I could say. Let Madam speak for herself.
As usual H.P.B. was in the midst of her critics, and her remarks have the rugged quality for which she was justly famous. As Mrs. Williams is particularly incensed over Madam Blavatsky's claims about the existence of mahatmas and adepts, H.P.B.'s remarks on this controversial issue might have been addressed directly to our Denver authoress. *
(*In the passages quoted from this letter written in her own handwriting, the spelling and punctuation have been left exactly as they appear in the original. In a few cases of obvious misspelling of Sanscrit terms, the correct transliteration has been added in brackets. - Ed. Theosophia.)
"All depends, you see, on what each of us means by Mahatmas or Masters. To a Hindu, no doubt, from the very learned Subba Row, down to Babula - 'Mahatma,' Guru or Master, is a naked Yogi with a chignon of entangled and unkempt hair on the top of the head; one who whether all Adweita [Adwaita], Dwaita or Visishadwaita [Visishtadwaita], ... or Vishnava [Vaishnava], or whatever else, follows the rules of Patanjali, of Chartanya Sankaracharya [Chaitanya Sankaracharya or any other of the known acheryas [acharyas]; one who calls upon the name of his 330 crown of deities, repeats parrot like his Aums, etc., etc. For me and those who know the Masters personally, our 'Mahatmas' so-called, are nothing of the kind. Olcott is home, and you may ask him what our Masters are like, whether from the description he had from me in New York and which was never altered to this day, or from the two Masters he met personally - one in Bombay and the other in Cashmere. My masters and the Masters are Yogis and Munis de facto, not de jure; in their life not in appearance. They are members of an occult Brotherhood, not of any particular School in India. One of their highest Mahachohans lived in Egypt and went to Tibet only a year before we did (in 1878) and he is neither a Tibetan nor a Hindu; this occult Brotherhood has not originated in Tibet, nor is it only in Tibet now; but what I always said and maintain to this day is, that most of its members and some of the highest are, and live constantly, in Tibet, because of its isolation and freedom from Christians; that its origin is of untold antiquity, and is as much Masonic as present Masonry is little Masonic; ... and finally that if I spoke only (to our Fellows of T.S.) of two or three Masters it is because my own Masters happen to be a Rajput [11] by birth - and 'Koot Hoomi' a Cashmerian, and therefore these were likely to be more authoritative with the Hindus than the rest of them. Ask Olcott, Sinnett, and even Hume, and even the latter could not without saying a lie tell you that I had not repeated this to them over and over again adding many a time that even few lamas knew the whole truth about the 'Chapa' (men-spirits) as they call them on account of their having so little to do with the general mass of the people. I said and repeat, that they are living men not 'spirits,' or even Nirmanakayas, that their knowledge arid learning are immense, and their personal holiness of life is still greater - still they are mortal men and none of them live 1000 years old as imagined by some. What I said and say, was and is, the truth; those who will have it, all right; those who see in what I say a cleverly concocted romance by me, are also welcome ...
When we went to Pondichery with Olcott to form a Branch, instead of fifty or sixty members we got but three or four. Why? Simply because I had said to an influential member that our Mahatmas did not sit buried in the earth letting their toe and finger nails grow a yard long and the birds make nests in their top-nots - for such was his idea. He left the T.S. and led away almost all others. Ask Olcott, he must remember the fact. And yet in the very room where visitors came to see us, in the crowd there stood a living Mahatma, whom I knew for years, who lives in the neighborhood, but whom no one seemed to know in Pondichery, and who was mistaken for a Malayalin - a stranger!"
We cannot expect those who have no conception of an inner mystical life and no intention of seeking enlightenment through the unfoldment of their own inner faculties to understand or appreciate the esoteric tradition. They will not investigate, therefore, cannot equip themselves with the means of passing an intelligent judgment.
The late Srimat Kuladananda Brahmachary, one of the most deeply venerated of the Madhwacharya Order, said to me in Calcutta years ago, "If the West really wants to understand the Eastern mystics it is not so difficult. Select from your Universities a group of your outstanding students and professors; send them to us, and let them remain for five years following our instructions and obeying our rules; then let these then pass judgment upon our methods and our accomplishments."
The thousands of sincere and aspiring men and women in all parts of the world, who are proud to acknowledge the debt which they owe to Madam Blavatsky, will be properly indignant at a book which is so obviously an enterprise in catchpenny journalism. But they will remain forever grateful for the light of Eastern wisdom brought to the West by the white Yogini. We will always revere her as a faithful, unselfish servant of the Masters of Wisdom.
Is Aleister Crowley considered a theologist?
and what about that woman who wrote Psychic Self Defense?
And that French woman who went to Tibet and wrote a book?
Is Aleister Crowley considered a theologist?
and what about that woman who wrote Psychic Self Defense?
And that French woman who went to Tibet and wrote a book?
No.
Blavatsky wrote Psychic Self Defense. the compiler was Lina Psaltis, a theosophist.
The French woman may have been Alexandra David-Neel.
Is Aleister Crowley considered a theologist?
and what about that woman who wrote Psychic Self Defense?
And that French woman who went to Tibet and wrote a book?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo101
Blavatsky wrote Psychic Self Defense. the compiler was Lina Psaltis, a theosophist.
No,it is Dion Fortune
There were two books with the same title - Blavatsky was the source that Psaltis compiled.
Dion Fortune cared about Western tradition, not Tibetan Buddhism like (David-Neel) and she was British not French.
I know Dion Fortune is English,so is Alester Crowley.
What do you call their preaching/deeds?
Occult?
Is witchcraft a cheap form of occult?
And what about Hermes?
why does Blavatsky care about Psychic Self Defense?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
