Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00215)

Some observations regarding Wes Amerman's reply below:

Again, we revisit this tired old debate. Ever since the death of the founders 
of the Theosophical Movement as we know it today, this battle has raged on 
between the various interested parties. Who has the correct interpretation of 
Theosophy and who does not! Knowingly or unknowingly the succeeding 
generation have sustained what has been and is today, essentially a 
political/organizational and sometime philosophical split. The means of 
defending the various party position are many and very clever indeed, to say 
the least. However two things are extremely bothersome about this ongoing 
debate. First, judging from the history of the last hundred years of 
this debate, the champions of whichever side one is on, has never allowed for 
the possibility of resolution or solution. The fact that we are talking about 
only the core material of HPB, Judge, Sinnett , etc., as being worth 
considering as a valid entry point into Theosophical studies, leaves no room 
for discovering theosophical value in other writers and leaders of Theosophy 
( The pseudo-theosophists). It continues to (perhaps unwittingly) sustain the 
deepening split by polarizing the various individuals who fall into the trap, 
as moths to flame. The other point of great concern to me, is that it leaves 
no room for the evolutionary unfoldment and advancement of buddhi-manas in 
the last four generations of incarnating souls. It seems to me that 
generations coming into incarnation in the 50's 60's, etc., right up to now 
(100 years after the founding of the movement) might very well be gifted with 
a slightly evolved, if not advanced movement in their buddhi-manas 
consciousness. Their capacity to "Find the Theosophy" in material and 
experiences which lie outside of the accepted canonical versions may very 
well surpass the capacity or abilities of we older theosophists, who in many 
cases have given our lives to the study of only "mainstream theosophical 
literature." The ongoing generations of the best of humanity will be led, as 
always, by their capacity for intuitive inspirational enlightenment. Which of 
us has the right to allude to, infer or state outright that they are barking 
up the wrong or a slightly impure tree? Especially when many of the 
entrenched older theosophists have never read the offending material with the 
same zeal, open heart and deep fascination that they have given to their more 
orthodox studies. 

It seems to me that this debate will never be put to rest by direct 
involvement. The only other solution is transcending the particulars. Allow 
for a couple of axioms. "Everything is eternally evolving". (Even Theosophy 
and the writings thereof) and "Each incoming wave incarnating souls come in 
with slightly modified (evolved) equipment".
Then it becomes easier to accept the probability that there may be "the same 
emerging genuine theosophy" available in 2000 as there was in 1900. Only a 
bright new consciousness and enhanced intuitional vision is required to see 
it.

That said, Blavatsky Net and this list has the perfect right to set the 
parameters of how they want their study topics and list participation to 
unfold. I think that most will benefit by following the policies of these 
list owners. Certainly we can all use more information and idea sharing 
regarding our beloved HPB, her times, her colleagues and her writings. There 
will be no loss in pursuing this path as long as we keep in mind that there 
ARE other paths, to the same place. The Ancient Wisdom is not ancient because 
it is old, it is ancient because it is TRUE! And TRUTH, is ETERNAL and ONE.


Louis


In a message dated 2/24/2001 7:07:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
amerman@theosophy.net writes:

> Subj: Theos-World RE: Pseudo-Theosophy
> Date: 2/24/2001 7:07:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
> From: amerman@theosophy.net (Wes Amerman)
> Reply-to: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 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 problem is 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 someone else 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 Adepts who 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, said it 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 
>