Theosophy

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, freetoroam said:

ParaG will be looking for some pro literature to try and  prove this is wrong. 

I don't even care. 

[Piney]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Piney, you do realize who you're arguing with right? 

Actually my oldest stepson is the same way. When you have a program doing all the diagnostics for you your critical thinking and systemizing skills go right into the waste can. 

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

Actually my oldest stepson is the same way. When you have a program doing all the diagnostics for you your critical thinking and systemizing skills go right into the waste can. 

Using your brain is slowly becoming a dying art. 

[jaylemurph]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

You missed the gist of my post.

For example, do we consider we might  getting an enemy-distorted view of her claims and events? What is Blavatsky's position on Coleman's attacks? I would think a fair-minded person would want to hear that too, right? That is my gist.

There will always be suckers willing to give their time, money, and belief over to charlatans of the lowest order. I've just never seen people so proud to label themselves dupes. 

--Jaylemurph

[XenoFish]

There are two things when it comes to spiritual ideologies. Money and Control.

[freetoroam]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

There are two things when it comes to spiritual ideologies. Money and Control.

Yes, and there are many who lose their money and control because they believe in it. 

[papageorge1]

9 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

There will always be suckers willing to give their time, money, and belief over to charlatans of the lowest order. I've just never seen people so proud to label themselves dupes. 

--Jaylemurph

Can not similar  be said for the close-minded types banning together to reinforce their blinkers for their own intellectual/emotional security?

i’m of the type that actually likes to understand all sides and form my independent judgment.

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

Can not similar  be said for the close-minded types banning together to reinforce their blinkers for their own intellectual/emotional security?

i’m of the type that actually likes to understand all sides and form my independent judgment.

Is that the "go to" insult? Calling people closed minded because they choose not to drink the kool aid. 

[freetoroam]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Can not similar  be said for the close-minded types banning together to reinforce their blinkers for their own intellectual/emotional security?

i’m of the type that actually likes to understand all sides and form my independent judgment.

The only closed minded person is yourself. You have closed your mind to the facts...as i told you.eatlier, the facts are not of our making, so it makes no difference if we are skeptics or not, she had been proven to be a fraud. 

Sorry ParaG, it really is as simple as that - unless you close your mind to it, then well, if the facts can not convince you, nothing will.

[papageorge1]

7 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Is that the "go to" insult? Calling people closed minded because they choose not to drink the kool aid. 

No, it’s because of the subjective knee-jerk negative reactions (as opposed to fact gathering and objective consideration) that gives me the cause to say ‘close-minded’.

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

No, it’s because of the subjective knee-jerk negative reactions (as opposed to fact gathering and objective consideration) that gives me the cause to say ‘close-minded’.

Did you not read the links provided? Guess not. Because they don't conform to your narrow field of view. We've done the work, its your turn now.

[XenoFish]

Why is it that the skeptic can support their position and the believers more than often fail to do so? Then we the skeptics are the bad guys.

Edited September 13, 2018 by XenoFish

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Did you not read the links provided? Guess not. Because they don't conform to your narrow field of view. We've done the work, its your turn now.

I said I would provide pro-Blavatsky material when I am back to my computer (not phone). Are you really so sure your facts couldn’t have  been distorted to produce the intended conclusion? Hmmmm

[danydandan]

49 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

I have upgraded mine to a 5 digit code.  

 

Note to self: put 45345 into phone book under a disguise.

The genius part is, everyone has the same code, just different account numbers.

[danydandan]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I said I would provide pro-Blavatsky material when I am back to my computer (not phone). Are you really so sure your facts couldn’t have  been distorted to produce the intended conclusion? Hmmmm

Did you at least read the links provided?

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

Did you at least read the links provided?

No, but maybe when I get back to my computer. But anyway I’ve been familiar with the Blavatsky controversies for decades now and I doubt there is anything there unfamiliar to me.

As I said my best drawn conclusion is that she is indeed psychically and spiritually gifted but a person not without flaws and errors.

 

[freetoroam]

5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

As I said my best drawn conclusion is that she is indeed psychically and spiritually gifted but a person not without flaws and errors.

 

Flaws and errors? Otherwise known as frauds.

Ok, can you list her flaws and errors please. I am interested to read what you list as her flaws and errors.

[XenoFish]

58 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I said I would provide pro-Blavatsky material when I am back to my computer (not phone). Are you really so sure your facts couldn’t have  been distorted to produce the intended conclusion? Hmmmm

Strange. I posted my links from my phone. Wasn't difficult at all. Let's get one things straight, those aren't my facts. Those belong to someone else. Now if you actually have a counter point and can create a real discussion, bring it on.

[papageorge1]

11 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

 Let's get one things straight, those aren't my facts. Those belong to someone else.

I know they belong to someone else. But that doesn’t make them undistorted, right? 

Strange how nonskeptical skeptics are to what they want to hear. Maybe, just maybe, the term ‘skeptical’ is ill fitting and the terms ‘anti-paranormal’ and ‘anti-spiritual’ are better fitting.

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I know they belong to someone else. But that doesn’t make them undistorted, right? 

Strange how nonskeptical skeptics are to what they want to hear. Maybe, just maybe, the term ‘skeptical’ is ill fitting and the terms ‘anti-paranormal’ and ‘anti-spiritual’ are better fitting.

What in the hell is that? Nonskeptical skeptics? Isn't that the same thing as saying believer? Did I miss something are is this a little mistype? Plus, quit projecting your insecurities on to us. Just give us your counter point if you actually have one. 

I'll tell you the truth PapaSmurf. People like you are putting my peddle to the metal on the road to complete disbelief. 

[Amita]

My goodness gracious, what a kerfuffle about HPB.  No surprise though, especially the shallow criticisms of her.  There are over 20 volumes of her writings in English, some translated from French & Russian.  Now I am not holding my breath that any critic will actually read cover to cover even one, but original sources can surprise one.  

As for her facility with language or her conceptual familiarity with Buddhism, Vedanta etc.  She admits she often relied on whatever 19th cent. scholars had to say on such subject.  But, she also (in addition to meeting them in the flesh) had a rare psychic ability to hear & see her Gurus, who gave her an esoteric interpretation of much language-based teachings.  

Any bodhi-based Guru today will say that the language & texts are only the skeleton of the Dharma.  As the Heart Sutra mantra's meaning says Go beyond, beyond, further beyond to Bodhi.

I also suspect this site's emphasis on 'Unexplained Mysteries' has several ungrateful participants.  It was Blavatsky (and Godfrey Higgins) who first touched on these offbeat areas and fostered their exploration. 

One site with pro-Blavatsky content is the very same Blavatsky Study Center where anti-Blavatsky material can be found.  I know the owner and he is simply following the motto that HPB liked "There is no religion higher than Truth."  Yet if one explores that site you will find it is 90% pro-HPB.

[Piney]

15 minutes ago, Amita said:

AsShe admits she often relied on whatever 19th cent. scholars had to say on such subject.

and that's why she got so much wrong

15 minutes ago, Amita said:

 But, she also (in addition to meeting them in the flesh) had a rare psychic ability to hear & see her Gurus, who gave her an esoteric interpretation of much language-based teachings.  

and that's bull****. Because she got it wrong.

Do yourself a favor and study at a actual Temple.......

[papageorge1]

All right guys @jaylemurph @XenoFish @freetoroam @danydandan @Piney and all my other dear friends I'm  forgetting.

Here is the Britannica Encyclopedia entry for Helena Blavatsky

One passage to make my point that her case-closed fraud status by her ill-wishers is not such a case-closed thing at all:

 After protesting her innocence while on a tour of Germany, she returned to India in 1884 and met with an enthusiastic reception. The “Hodgson Report,” the findings of an investigation in 1885 by the London Society for Psychical Research, declared her a fraud. (A century later, however, the society published a critical study of the Hodgson Report and announced in a press release that Blavatsky had been unjustly condemned.)

This is the Encyclopedia Britannica (not even a Theosophical Society Biography). No it is not CSICOP, Skeptic's Dictionary, Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia, or those rags but an encyclopedia that prides itself on objectivity.

Now, I or anyone can find rather positive biographies from Theosophists.

The bottom line is Blavatsky is not a plain as day fraud but a most complex and complicated case that can not be dismissed out of hand.

 

[XenoFish]

Why in the hell do I bother with some of you anymore...

On that note. Don't trip over anything. I know those rose tinted glasses have turn pitch black.

[Amita]

"Is it enough for man to know that he exists? Is it enough to be formed a human being to enable him to deserve the appellation of Man? It is our decided impression and conviction, that to become a genuine spiritual entity, which that designation implies, man must first create himself anew, so to speak — i.e., thoroughly eliminate from his mind and spirit, not only the dominating influence of selfishness and other impurity, but also the infection of superstition and prejudice. The latter is far different from what we commonly term antipathy or sympathy. We are at first irresistibly or unwittingly drawn within its dark circle by that peculiar influence, that powerful current of magnetism which emanates from ideas as well as from physical bodies. By this we are surrounded, and finally prevented through moral cowardice — fear of public opinion — from stepping out of it. It is rare that men regard a thing in either its true or false light, accepting the conclusion by the free action of their own judgment. Quite the reverse. The conclusion is more commonly reached by blindly adopting the opinion current at the hour among those with whom they associate."

Isis Unveiled

After nearly 50 years of steeping myself in Blavatsky's teachings I am content with accepting her bona fides.  After only 40 years of taking refuge with Bodhisattva Hsuan Hua, I am also content with such understanding of Mahayana as I may have and hope to gain more.

So if some wish to waste band space & time quibbling over HPB or her theosophy, so be it.  I will rarely respond to said quibblers.  Nowadays this internet gives one ability to do deep research, however whether prejudice rules the mind or not is up to the researcher.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Amita