The Briefing Room
General Category => Sports/Entertainment/MSM/Social Media => Books and Authors => Topic started by: Skull on April 22, 2021, 08:41:42 pm
-
The Victorian era was also a time of intense social pressure to conform and think, say and be "proper". One of the brightest spiritual lights preferring freedom of thought & expression was Helena Blavatsky. A new collection of many of her editorials is now out. Here is the Introduction by the compiler:
https://www.theosophyforward.com/articles/theosophy/2978-the-last-song-of-the-swan-editorials-the-lucifer-collection-volume-ii (https://www.theosophyforward.com/articles/theosophy/2978-the-last-song-of-the-swan-editorials-the-lucifer-collection-volume-ii)
-
The Victorian era was also a time of intense social pressure to conform and think, say and be "proper". One of the brightest spiritual lights preferring freedom of thought & expression was Helena Blavatsky. A new collection of many of her editorials is now out. Here is the Introduction by the compiler:
https://www.theosophyforward.com/articles/theosophy/2978-the-last-song-of-the-swan-editorials-the-lucifer-collection-volume-ii (https://www.theosophyforward.com/articles/theosophy/2978-the-last-song-of-the-swan-editorials-the-lucifer-collection-volume-ii)
Hailing a satanist, feminist, socialist? Really? The godmother of modern occultism? You gotta be kidding.
@Cyber Liberty
-
Hailing a satanist, feminist, socialist? Really? The godmother of modern occultism? You gotta be kidding.
@Cyber Liberty
It's an historical context, so fine by me. Got a problem with Keats, too? It's not like praises are being sung for Margaret Sanger here. :whistle:
-
It's an historical context, so fine by me. Got a problem with Keats, too? It's not like praises are being sung for Margaret Sanger here. :whistle:
Sanger was a disciple of Blavatsky and preached theosophy... So yeah...
-
So was Hitler, btw...
-
So was Hitler, btw...
I'll just let you and @Skull fight this one out, OK? Be nice, he's new.....
Oh, uh, Skull....I did warn you.
-
Blavatsky suffered far more stupid criticisms. The missionaries in India tried, with some success, to slander her. I will just briefly state that the popular, conventional view of her as an evil, satanic influence is garbage.
The fact that part of her many volumes of writings were cherry picked and/or misunderstood by genuinely evil people is on them - not on noble Helena B.
Perhaps this is pointless, but would a satanist write this in her Key to Theosophy?
In our opinion, Father Damien, the young man of thirty who offered his whole life in sacrifice for the benefit and alleviation of the sufferings of the lepers at Molokai, and who went to live for eighteen years alone with them, to finally catch the loathsome disease and die, has not died in vain. He has given relief and relative happiness to thousands of miserable wretches. He has brought to them consolation, mental and physical. He threw a streak of light into the black and dreary night of an existence, the hopelessness of which is unparalleled in the records of human suffering. He was a true Theosophist, and his memory will live for ever in our annals.
The Catholic Father is now Saint Damien.
-
Blavatsky suffered far more stupid criticisms. The missionaries in India tried, with some success, to slander her. I will just briefly state that the popular, conventional view of her as an evil, satanic influence is garbage.
Bullcrap. Theosophy is the basis for, or an inclusion in, every single philosophy that ails humanity.
The fact that part of her many volumes of writings were cherry picked and/or misunderstood by genuinely evil people is on them - not on noble Helena B.
Perhaps this is pointless, but would a satanist write this in her Key to Theosophy?
The Catholic Father is now Saint Damien.
YES. A satanist would.
-
Sounds good to me!
No religion can be absolutely true, and none can be absolutely false. A religion is true in proportion as it supplies spiritual, moral and intellectual needs, and helps the development of mankind in these respects. It is false in proportion as it hinders that development, and offends the spiritual, moral and intellectual portion of man’s nature.
HP Blavatsky
-
Sounds good to me!
HP Blavatsky
FALSE.
-
FALSE.
In All Caps - wow. Still sounds good to ME - freedom of thought, action & speech you know.
(Just pulling your chain, you mean the quote was false, not my fondness for it.)
-
It's an historical context, so fine by me. Got a problem with Keats, too? It's not like praises are being sung for Margaret Sanger here. :whistle:
My only problem with Keats, is 1. He died young
2. I, like Ferlinghetti, am waiting for his lovers to touch on the Grecian Urn.
-
In All Caps - wow. Still sounds good to ME - freedom of thought, action & speech you know.
(Just pulling your chain, you mean the quote was false, not my fondness for it.)
Your implication is that religion removes that freedom of thought, action and speech - Which is also false.
Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.
-
Your implication is that religion removes that freedom of thought, action and speech - Which is also false.
Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.
Only your contentious mind sees it that way. A tip on criticisms - do not seek or follow "implications" - they are often, even for the best of psychics - wrong; as in your case. Maybe this revision will help:
Still sounds good to ME - because it is MY freedom of thought, action & speech you know.
-
Only your contentious mind sees it that way. A tip on criticisms - do not seek or follow "implications" - they are often, even for the best of psychics - wrong; as in your case.
I am not being contentious. We are in profound disagreement.
If you care to absolve the implication, then be my guest.
-
I am not being contentious. We are in profound disagreement.
If you care to absolve the implication, then be my guest.
See my EDIT above
-
See my EDIT above
Then the implication was correct - You support the original quote in it's context, which is in fact, false.
-
Blavatsky was an interesting person. I've read some of her stuff. I find some it compelling.
-
Then the implication was correct - You support the original quote in it's context, which is in fact, false.
Of course, I already wrote that:
(Just pulling your chain, you mean the quote was false, not my fondness for it.)
This will my last - there appears to me to be from you, not one, but two "implications" -
1) Your implication is that religion removes that freedom of thought, action and speech
- which I deny.
2) When I wrote "sounds good to me", your reply was FALSE, which can be read as an illegitimate position for me to have.
-
Blavatsky was an interesting person. I've read some of her stuff. I find some it compelling.
A mind and heart far superior to the minions of that day.
-
Of course, I already wrote that:
This will my last - there appears to me to be from you, not one, but two "implications" -
1) - which I deny.
2) When I wrote "sounds good to me", your reply was FALSE, which can be read as an illegitimate position for me to have.
I couldn't care less about your positions. You are entitled to your opinions. That it 'sounds good' to you is an endorsement of the statement - and the statement is false.
-
More from Blavatsky on personal influence:
Thoreau pointed out that there are artists in life, persons who
can change the colour of a day and make it beautiful to those with whom
they come in contact. We claim that there are adepts, masters in life who
make it divine, as in all other arts.
Is it not the greatest art of all, this which affects the very atmosphere in
which we live? That it is the most important is seen at once, when we
remember that every person who draws the breath of life affects the
mental and moral atmosphere of the world, and helps to colour the day
for those about him. Those who do not help to elevate the thoughts and
lives of others must of necessity either paralyse them by indifference, or
actively drag them down.