Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00638)

kpauljohnson wrote:
...an excellent post, but the parts I want to comment on are:
> Thus, Theosophy isn't a nineteenth century mixture of Western
> esotericism with elements from Indic traditions; it's the eternal
> truth preserved for millennia secretly hidden from the profane until
> the time came for the Messenger of the Masters to reveal a portion of
> it. And so on with whatever movement one adheres to. It must be at
> the center of the universe, and anyone who places it on the periphery
> is the enemy. Its centrality is absolute and objective, not relative
> and subjective.

You are, of course, confusing Theosophy (which is a theoretical
construct) with the Theosophical Society (for whom your statement is
largely correct). Also, although many who have taken on the subset of
Theosophy that the Theosophical Society endorses as a religion, having
achieved what George Orwell termed "doublethink", or the ability to have
two mutually exclusive ideas in one's head and consider both of them to
be absolutely true, many, and I hope most, Theosophists recognize the
writings of the Adepts and Blavatsky to be, at most, a useful starting
point in a search for true Theosophy (as Blavatsky certainly did, based
on her introduction to THE SECRET DOCTRINE). 

> places Adelasie's version of truth at the center of the universe, and
> Brigitte's attacks on it as direct attempts to undermine central,
> universal truths. 

What I don't understand it the enormous amount of energy Brigitte
spends in trying to convince Theosophists that Theosophy is invalid, as
opposed to trying to find and correct the problems in Theosophy, as you
have (which can also be frustrating, but is not fruitless).

Bart Lidofsky