Theos-Talk Archives (September 1999 Message tt00128)

Leon wrote:

>I hate to interfere here, but when I see a logical discrepancy coming from a
>misunderstanding I must comment. I think Dallas was speaking of those who
>took over the movement AFTER HPB could no longer hold it together (since she
>had gone to Devachan).

You are probably right Leon... for myself I was directing my attention at
the radical divisiveness of the movement and I suspect the seeds of its
breaking apart were already  there and at work before Madame Blavatsky
died. The nominal head Col. Olcott was in India, not partcularly well.. He
vacillated on his positions... later so did Annie Besant  ... the force of
controversies basically rent the movemnt in pieces...

>They were the ones (Besant, Leadbeater, etc.) who took the opportunity of
>HPB's death and the isolation of WQJ to divert the movement (from bases
>outside the US) and change its focus to a "Christianized" version of
>theosophy.  This, in direct contradiction to HPB's contention that
>Christianity and its vicarious atonement theology was the antithesis of
>theosophy -- except in the mostly ignored teachings of its supposed founder
>-- whose denial of him being and adept Hebrew-Essene rabbi (priest, guru,
>teacher), and of his teachings of reincarnation and karma, has been the
>consistent cry of this bastardized, idol worshipping religion since the Holy
>Roman Empire.  Not to say that many later spin-offs and smaller sects of
>Christianity who try to follow the teachings of their Christ figurehead have
>been as pernicious as the "Roman Catholic" divisions -- but they still are
>burdened with a profound ignorance of the "fundamental truths" upon which
>Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings relied upon, as well as the scientific philosophy
>behind those teachings.  Also, Alice Bailey, using the same Christian base
>along with a spurious "mysticism" that HPB decried, managed to break off a
>large potential following of the TM, represented by the original TS.  As did
>Rudolph Steiner and his anthroposophic viewpoint with its  stress on physical
>and social perfection before spiritual understanding.  The same could be said
>of Gurdjieff, Ouspenski, and other Blavatsky initiated "good guys" as well as
>her "dugpa" spinoffs like Crowley, and even Hitler.  They all used HPB's
>misinterpreted statements as the basis of their deviations from the original
>teachings.

Leon, I don't know about you, but when I read this, it calls to mind the
divisiveness and partisanship that still plaques Theosophy to this day...
If it cannot be overcome by cooperative endeavours between say the various
branches of theosophists and the anthroposophists, I fear the opportunities
for brotherhood and solidarity in the movement will surely be gone forever.
You know I enjoy interacting with different theosophists as well as
anthroposophists and we really sell ourselves short by not overcoming the
polarities that divide us.

Leon wrote:

>The only credit that modern scientists deserve is that they gave
>us a sufficient understanding of the correlation of forces on the material
>plane to give us all the wonderful high technologies we have today...
>Especially, those that enable us to discuss in cyberspace such erudite
>matters as the science and technologies of mind and consciousness and our
>individual relationship with the primal "God" forces on both yjeir positive
>and negative levels.

I hope Leon you can give more credit to the scientific community for
advances in astronomy, physiology, biochemistry, and now genetic studies...
You may recall also how many of the nuclear physicists reacted when the USA
was going to drop the bomb on Japan.. Many signed an accord against the use
of nuclear technology in war and I applaud them for that... so scientists
will sometimes have a social conscience.

Leon wrote:

>There is a much greater difference between pastors who reads the bible with
>blind belief and those that quote HPB as the only source of theosophical
>teaching covering a scientific and religious philosophy whose acceptance or
>rejection is conditional only on the understanding of the individual student.

The point I was trying to make Leon is that even theosophists can be
dogmatic and not really listen to the other view...  What I dislike is the
situation where everything must stand or fall based of the writings of
Madame Blavatsky...to me that's very dogmatic and you could find people
equally committed to Calvin...

>Certainly one can be a theosophist and not agree entirely with HPB.  But, in
>doing so, one must be as logical and consistent in their refutations as she
>was in her presentations of fundamental truths and their correlations -- that
>are corroborated by so many thousands of masters and adepts both prior and
>since her time, and appears to be self evident to all those who have learned
>how to control their minds and think for themselves.  So far, no one that I
>know or heard of, has been able to successfully refute any of the
>philosophical scientific knowledge given us by HPB --

I don't know Leon... I haven't seen such a consistency that you maintain
among the thousands of masters and adepts with HPB...I think you can be a
theosophist and read not a word of HPB or have to respond to any arguments
at all... I think we'll appreciate the work that's being done by others
more  if we approach it on its own merits, instead of wearing HPB glasses
all the time!

I may seem simplistic and naive when I write these things but the greater
imperative should be getting along with others who don't share our views.

In Friendship,

Art Gregory





lgregory@discover.net




















-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.