Старый 16.07.2017, 00:23   #911
Рег-ция: 03.04.2008
Сообщения: 1,014
Благодарности: 5
Поблагодарили 55 раз(а) в 46 сообщениях
По умолчанию Ответ: Воплощения Махатм

Сообщение от Иваэмон Посмотреть сообщение
Ни единого серьезного аргументированного возражения по основным положениям книги.
Эээ... вроде как "основное положение" у книги одно: "письма" написаны не теми, кому приписаны. И возражения, соответственно, все вокруг этого и крутятся.

Сообщение от Иваэмон Посмотреть сообщение
Напоминает отзывы ортодоксальных рериховцев о книгах Росова: все придирки по мелочи.
По-Вашему, демонстрация систематического искажения авторами смысла того, что они критикуют, - это придирки по мелочи? Так у них же вся конструкция на этих "мелочах" покоится. Вот, пожалуйста, в лучших традициях какого-нибудь Кураева (если брать известных местной публике супостатов):
On page 47, the authors, suggesting that H. P. Blavatsky or the Mahatma K. H., or both, greatly exaggerated her accomplishments, say in regard to the mysterious Book of Khiu-tee (which consists of 36 volumes) “K. H. says that Madame Blavatsky ‘knows it by rote,’ and would translate if requested.” The correct statement as given in The Mahatma Letters, page 285, is, ‘Read the book of Khiu-tee and you will find in it these laws. She might translate for you some paras. as she knows them by rote.” Some paragraphs are not 36 volumes!
Т.е. авторы достали из воздуха аргумент в пользу непомерного самовосхваления ЕПБ. Мелочь, ага.

А вот большой кусок по самому что ни на есть центровому положению книги:
The authors assert (p. 230) that H. P. Blavatsky had been assisted in her alleged nefarious transactions by a small crowd of accomplices; a “fairly large ‘scriptorium’ existed in conducting the Mahatmic mission”; and that “It is now possible to say, from an examination of the letters, that those which purport to come from the Masters or to be written for them are in ten different hands. . .” These writers include Damodar, Subba Row, Mohini, and others, well known as being of honorable reputation in the opinion of their associates, some being distinguished in their own walk of life. Col. Olcott knew them well, and had the greatest confidence in their integrity. He had every opportunity of discovering fraud if it existed, and not even the bitterest enemy of Theosophy has claimed that he was a man who would connive at any imposture. Olcott had been for years in close association with H. P. Blavatsky, and many times she had tried his patience so severely, as he feelingly describes, that one in his position who had any suspicion of her bona fides would have broken loose and repudiated her and her Movement. But in spite of her volcanic temperament and other peculiarities, he knew her too well to doubt her fundamental integrity.

In regard to several of the others named by the Hares as writers of The Mahatma Letters: if they had been accomplices in a tremendous hoax they would have been conspiring against themselves, playing an idiotic game to cheat themselves for no visible object. They had sacrificed heavily in reputation, position in society, and the regard of friends and relatives, all this and more in order to support H. P. Blavatsky’s unpopular and calumniated activities. When the learned scholar T. Subba Row finally broke away, it was not because he thought she was inventing her teachings and Teachers, but, on the contrary, because in his opinion, as a chela of the Master M. she was giving out secrets of occultism which should have been kept within an inner circle. No, indeed, it would be far easier to believe that she alone invented The Mahatma Letters, and the philosophy which has made her so famous, and wrote it with her own pen, than that the “ten different hands” were deliberate conspirators. If the ten hands (and, presumably, ten minds) fabricated the Mahatma letters on page 230, how is it that they were, as the Hares say, fabricated by H. P. B. on page 165, and, above all, why should they betray her grammatical and other peculiarities? Why do they not bear the Hindu characteristics of Mohini or Damodar, or the English ones of Miss Travers, etc.?
Т.е. по утверждению авторов, писала не сама мадам, а десяток её подручных, причём себе на горе и в убыток, да ещё с сохранением всех её грамматических и прочих особенностей. Ну бред же. И это, типа, тоже "придирка по мелочи"?

Когда будете книгу переводить, не забудьте и эту критику перевести заодно.

Последний раз редактировалось sova, 16.07.2017 в 00:24.
sova вне форума  
Показать ответы на данное сообщение Ответить с цитированием Вверх