Theos-Talk Archives (September 2002 Message tt00135)

What does that mean?
That scholarly research on Theosophy is always correct?
Frank

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <comments@blavatskyarchives.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 6:07 PM
Subject: Theos-World James Santucci on Theosophy and Blavatsky


". . . All too often, this subject [Theosophy and its offshoots], 
when it is discussed in scholarly circles, is presented in a most 
unscholarly fashion. Falsehoods are perpetuated and original research 
is not actively pursued. A renewed interest in Theosophy is 
appearing, however."

". . . It is my hope that [a dispassionate historian of religion 
giving HPB her due] will take place sooner rather than later. One way 
of doing so is for scholars to reevaluate -- or perhaps read for the 
first time -- Blavatsky's principal writings in the light of 
nineteenth century scholarship. Readers will be surprised, in my 
opinion, at the depth and eclecticism that exist especially in her 
masterworks Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine."

James Santucci, 
Department of Comparative Religion, 
California State University, Fullerton

The above is quoted from: 
http://home.pacbell.net/amsec/theo2b.html

Dr. Santucci is editor of "Theosophical History."
See his website at:
http://www.theohistory.org/










Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/