Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00168)

Bart:
>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.

Who says theosophy is not supposed to be a religion? Men behind the
curtain? Or probably even HPB herself? Who is HPB to say what
theosophy is? She was merely a scribe that was writing up of some
guys' views on theosophy. Those mahatma-guys don't have any authority
over theosophy either. They didn't invent the reality, and theosophy
is reality as it is. If I write about gravity, and call my
organization Gravitophical Society, I don't suggest I have right to
say that nobody else can't write a treatise on gravity, or found
another Gravitophical Society?

>The problem is that everybody wanted to be a successor to 
>Blavatsky and nobody wanted to be a successor to Olcott.

Only problem there is that the successors probably didn't write
anything by themselves. All they wanted others do all the work, and
then stand proud guarding the books. I think HPB and Olcott and Judge
were fine people, and are a lot finer today (in human form or
without). They did write a lot of good stuff and they made a lot of
good things. BUT: There are going to be people who are going to
present us much more accurate views on theosophy that those three
combined! Do not forget what Jesus said, that we all shall one day do
greater deeds what HE had done. Excelsior!

>In doing so, many of these leaders tried to take their
>personal religious views, and make them the official
>Theosophical Society "party line".

Names darling, I want the names of those wrongdoers... O;-)

PS.
My responses may unveil some irritation out
of sensitive readers' emotional vehicle.
But that is only a good thing, because
it heals by doing that. So excuse me.

-- 
http://www.kolumbus.fi/sanctius/myself.html