Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00460)

April 23rd Dear Jerry:

No "scathing incitement" of any writer is intended. Alan Bain
posts a clear statement recently: All we have is what is written
"about Theosophy." This is true. Our job, as I see it, is to
determine what is useful and accurate.

Some of us have done this for ourselves and have been passing
along our observation that the "core writings" have to be known
well. Then when reading what anyone says, we have a basis for
comparison.

In any case our individual "common sense" has to be given full
reign.
We have to assure ourselves (as HPB constantly reminds us) that
even the "core writings" are reasonable and accurate. She did
not want to be taken as "an authority." and the reason is plain
as I see it, she knew that words can be misinterpreted. She
repeats herself many times in various places and uses different
words and illustrations, trying to get about 7 ideas through to
us. The "three fundamentals" of the SD
( I pp. 14-18 } are the start of that. UNITY, KARMA,
REINCARNATION, UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND INTER-ACTION are, as I
see it, the other 4. She calls them the "golden Links" in the
KEY.

What I, and others [ like Geoffrey Farthing in his Manifesto] are
trying to say is, simply: do not be misled by second level
writers, who (to us, and as a result of our study comparisons) do
not seem to truly understand what the CORE TEACHINGS are or were
meant to say.

Everyone likes a shortcut, or something that is comfortable to
their established views. Many of the intermediate writers after
HPB and Judge have satisfied this tendency, and tend to mislead.
AND THAT IS ALL.

My voice is raised as a CAUTION. I do not condemn, I would
rather that you or anyone else read and decide for your selves.
It is quite impossible for anyone to do another's thinking for
them ! If you look at HPB's statements on Education in the KEY
you will notice that she says that the ideal should be "free
intellectually, free morally, unprejudiced in all respects, and
above all things unselfish." (p. 271)

I do hope that this is clear. The original writings are quite
coherent. Those that wrote following those originals, begin to
show signs of incohateness, and the reasons for that can be
traced.

Margaret Thomas in 1925 published such a comparison:

 THEOSOPHY or NEO-THEOSOPHY

I believe that the Edmonton, Canada T S has reprinted it
recently. It is worth reading.

All the best to you, Dallas

>From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
>Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 3:23 PM
>Subject: Re:The "Eternal Present: and KARMA
>
>I agree with you on this point, certainly. I suppose the Big
Question
>is whether or not post-HPB writings are "theosophy?"