Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00526)

>From: "K Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
>Date: Friday, April 24, 1998 2:02 AM
>Subject: Coherence

>Dallas writes that the original Theosophical writings are
>"coherent" but those of the later generation "show signs of
>inchoateness." This is held to be a criterion for accepting the
>former and rejecting, or at least not accepting, thelatter.
>Which brings up two questions: Is this in fact true
>historically, and in any event is coherence a valid criterion
>for what we accept in spiritual teaching?

I sense Dallas refers to the doctrines of theosophy itself,
not to the explanation of its several teachings.
Theosophy is consistent when taken as a whole and not cutted
into pieces.

>My answer to the first question is a strong no. The
>writings of HPB are not internally consistent at all, as has
>been repeatedly demonstrated.

One should not confuse theosophy and their formulation of
it.

>She begins as a Spiritualist, then becomes an
>agent of an Egyptian brotherhood teaching "Oriental
>Rosicrucianism," in both phases denying reincarnation.

Wrong. The doctrines as a whole where teached by her from
the first time of her arrival in New York in the ES.
Judge certifies f.e. that he was been taught about
reincarnation in 1874. Judge continued to teach this
esoteric doctrines when HPB installed him as leader of the
E.S. in 1879, when she and Olcott were leaving for India.

>Once in India, her writings endorse reincarnation, and also
>show an ever-increasing familiarity with Eastern religion.
>The orthodox Theosophical view of HPB is that she knew
>everything later expounded in her writings before she ever
>started writing for publication. But the evidence is against
>any such notion.

Which evidence?

>She was clearly someone constantly learning, expanding,
>modifying, sometimes contradicting her earlier views. On
>the other hand, people like Alice Bailey and CWL
>seem far more consistent than HPB, since they're not
>learning from living teachers or avidly acquiring
>book-learning, but instead drawing forth from some inner
>experiences or astral encounters a body of teachings that
>is not subject to the kind of reality checks HPB encountered
>by consulting with real-life experts in person or through their
>writings.

CWL claims the date of his birth four years earlier in 1847.
A lie. He claims to have lived in South America. A lie. He
claims to have a brother. A lie. He claims that George
Arundale was his brother. A lie. He claims to be a pupil of
HPB's teachers. A lie. He claims authority of his false
teachings. A lie. He claims that they are theosophy. A lie
(Rudolf Steiner was so kind to rename his own teachings into
anthroposophy to prevent further confusions). He claims that
theosophy teaches that children should have sex. A lie. He
teaches about the chakras. A lie (compare with BCW XII and
GdeP). And, and and... Yes, this all of CWL is truly a kind
of consistency. :-)
You have no more to think for yourself. All is good. All is
easy. Just believe and trust. Make some left tantric
practices and make some degenerated Greek worships and
ceremonies and the astral world is open to you. You will
soon become a Mahatma or a Bodhisattva or a Logos or an even
higher being.

>HPB's inconsistency is that of a person who is willing to
>change her views according to new evidence and new
>perspectives from new sources.

Variations in giving teachings out deal rather more with the
quality of the pupil and his ability to grasp it than with
the knowledge of the teacher itself. When a school teacher
has a first class to teach he teaches the ABC, when he
teaches a higher class he perhaps is able to teach Algebra
or Latin. It is a wrong conclusion to assume that the
teacher knew nothing about Algebra or Latin when he taught
the first class...

>Bailey's consistency is that of a monotonous medium who
>has only her own inner resources to draw on, IMO.
>(Similarly, Krishnamurti kept saying the same thing over
>and over because he refused to learn anything new. His
>unwillingness to read is repeatedly stated in books about him.)

Curiously, the Krishnamurti business sells dozens and dozens
of books... Why?

>So that's 2 no answers: HPB is not very consistent; her
>self-proclaimed successors however are.

The teachings HPB delivered ARE consistent as much as the
teachings of her successors because they are from the same
source, the same school. They are definitely not from the
psychic or astral world.

>The more important question, though, is one of values
>rather than facts. Is a consistent teacher more valuable
>than an inconsistent one? Does the diversity and evolving
>complexity of HPB's teachings make them less valuable than
>the much simpler and more consistent teachings of
>Leadbeater?
>I would say not, because HPB's lack of consistency gives us
>a much bigger window into the world of spiritual and
>esoteric literature. She is simply a bigger figure on the world
>stage than any of her successors, far more international in
>experience and consciousness, far more eclectic and creative,
>and thus having a much wider influence.
>
>Cheers,
>Paul

So much in short,
Frank