Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00171)

Dear Friends,

 

Dallas wrote:

 

Yes there are differences between ORIGINAL THEOSOPHY and Pseudo-theosophy which has arisen AFTER THE DEATH OF H.P.B.
The problemis to distinguish between the two.
It can only be done if you know what ORIGINAL H.P.B. TEACHINGS are -- then you have a touch-stone whereby you can test any writing or speech that claims to be "theosophical."

Then, in reply, sanctius@mail.com wrote:

 

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

 

Great questions!  If someoneelse may be allowed to step into the conversation here, I'd like to add a couple of thoughts:

 

Lumping writings into categories of "original Theosophy" and "false Theosophy" seems to me to be a linear sort of thinking and only partially helpful. Why not compare "ideas" instead of "persons?" No writer is "all right" or "all wrong;" even Blavatsky never claimed infallibility.   Most of the names listed (and what a list! -- some I know, many I don't) appear to be persons who never claimed to be "teachers" or "instructors," much less to have invented anything.  Many were/are brilliant writers and good human beings, who often said they were just "seekers," "fellow students," "scholars," or whatnot, who were sharing their discoveries, experiences or insights.  I have no problem with such people who write books and articles, or lecture on theosophical or other themes.  They are free, of course, to write what they want to, but should it be called "theosophy?"

 

The fact is, we Theosophists owe a great debt of gratitude to H. P. Blavatsky, so it might be well if we knew what she taught, and what she did not. Here is one possible summary of Blavatsky's approach: 

 

1.  She pointed to evidence that Truth does exist, and has always existed.

2.  There is a Path to it that all can follow and learn.

3.  There are and always have been the Adeptswho know that wisdom, and that she had been instructed by them.

4.  Some fundamental ideas are at the root of that knowledge, which she called "Theosophy."

5.  She did not claim to have started it all, saidit all, nor invented it, nor added to it, and

6.  Truth always agrees with itself.

 

Many who wrote later contributed much that is valuable, interesting and inspiring; the question is, have we educated ourselves enough in the fundamental roots of that wisdom tradition that we can discern truth from opinion?   I think this is what Dallas had in mind, when he suggested learning the Theosophy as taught by Blavatsky, in order to compare and understand that written later.

Ultimately, it's up to each person to decide how valuable each writer is, and how deeply to study any of them. 

 

Best Regards,

Wes