Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00166)

sanctius@mail.com wrote:
> 
> Dallas:
> >Yes there are differences between ORIGINAL THEOSOPHY and
> >Pseudo-theosophy which has arisen AFTER THE DEATH OF H.P.B.
> >The problem is to distinguish between the two.
> 
> That is something new to me, and I'm definetly interested!
> Why not give a try to distinguish those two? So you say
> there are TWO factions, a) Original Theosophy or True
> Theosophy and b) Pseudo Theosophy or False Theosophy?
> Each theosophic author therefore falls in one category.
> Not both, just one. Just fill in the blanks with a or b.
> Remember to include yourself. Please feel free to add as
> many theosophical authors as you like:

Getting serious now, there IS some merit to Dallas' contention.
Theosophy is not supposed to be a religion; it is more taking religion,
and paying attention instead to the "man behind the curtain", to use a
phrase from a prominent Theosophical author. The problem is that
everybody wanted to be a successor to Blavatsky and nobody wanted to be
a successor to Olcott. In doing so, many of these leaders tried to take
their personal religious views, and make them the official Theosophical
Society "party line". Unfortunately, one reaction to this was to turn
the "Primary Literature" into religious tracts themselves; in other
words, turning Theosophy into a dogma to prevent it from becoming a
religion. Those who follow that path have been known to call their
dogmatic viewpoint "True Theosophy", and the dogmatic viewpoints of
others "Pseudo Theosophy". 

One of the things which keeps me in the TS-Adyar is that, although
there are many religious elements that have crept in, TS-Adyar is the
only Theosophical organization which is democratically controlled, and,
although it is slow, it CAN be changed.

Bart Lidofsky