Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00184)

Mr Lindsay, 
My responses to yours below: 

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Weeks [mailto:nick.weeks@worldnet.att.net] 
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 9:00 PM
To: Theos Talk
Subject: Theos-World Fw: Pseudo-theosophy of AAB & CWL

I think Mr. Lindsay intended this for Theos-talk as well as myself &
Jerry HE,
so I pass it on.
Nicholas
******************


> In response to Niklas's letter and that of Jerry Hejka-Ekins, there
> are a couple of points that come up. Correct me if I am wrong,
> but 'pseudo-theosophy' is anything that is not the source material
> of HPB's? If this is the case, I can see how diehard 'theosophists'
> would regard anyone else as an interloper.

To define 'pseudo theosophy' as anything that is not source material
becomes problematical because it begs a very precise distinction of what
is the source material of HPB's and what is not. As far as I have been
able to determine, the word "Pseudo-theosophy" was first used in 1918 by
H.N. Stokes. At first he applied it to distinguish CWL's teachings from
HPB's, but later extended it to other teachers that he believed also in
contradicted HPB's and her teacher's writings. I did not use the term
"pseudo-Theosophy," nor am I necessarily in agreement with the ways Dr.
Stokes had used it. Rather, please note that I used the term
"neo-theosophy," in my comments to Nicholas. I use this term in the
same spirit as 'neo-Platonism' is used distinguish a certain thread of
thought that grew out of Platonism. It is not a valuative distinction,
but an historical and substantive one. My reading of Theosophical
literature has led me to the conclusion that, in a similar manner as
neo-Platonism, the overall modern theosophical movement has given birth
to many theosophies--or what I call "neo-theosophies." My reply to
Nicholas was merely to identify the historical origins of some of them
and their inter-relationships. 

>
> My point is that it smacks of the very religious intolerance that
> the TS pupports to promote. It is the same as a Christian's
> intolerance for a Buddhist.

By "it," do you mean the term pseudo-theosophy? Perhaps that depends
upon how one uses the term. I would agree that the potential for
religious intolerance is there for those who treat theosophy as a
religion. 


> The Masters chose our venerable HPB as a rare amanuensis who could
> serve their purposes. Yet CWL's undoubted clairvoyant skills and
> receptivity were also used for a time, despite his distortions in
> such books as "Man How Whence Whither" - (or whatever!) And I can
> see him being branded as a 'pseudo-theosophist' for good reason. But
> this is also based on old TS politics and schisms which are ancient
> history!

I'm afraid that I'm having difficulty following your thought here. Are
you saying that CWL is a pseudo-theosophist because of TS politics and
schisms? Are you therefore saying that if there were no politics and
schisms, CWL would not have been branded a pseudo-theosophist? How is
this so?


> My argument is that Theosophical sadduccees have created a
> theosophical fundamentalism which is bigoted and hypocritical to the
> foundations' original aims. It holds therefore that HPB's theosophy
> is the only theosophy and that no one else is capable of bringing
> through a further installment of the Masters' teachings.

Who are these 'theosophical Sadducees'? What are they teaching that is
'bigoted and hypocritical to the foundations' original aims? Where are
these teachings published? 

> The key here is a lack of discrimination that is exercised by those
> with this fundamentalist bias, and an emotional adherence to 'their'
> teachings. These people want to 'own' theosophy as theirs and no one
> else's, and they are the only ones who possess the spiritual truth.
> Sounds familiar doesn't it, like a fundamentalist Christian or
> Muslim? Such is the way of the unadvanced spiritual aspirant of
> today, locked into the world of kama-manas.

Who are you speaking of here who 'want to own theosophy'?

> A separative mind can rationalise anything in this light, as
> evidenced by some of the early anti Alice Bailey (AAB)commentaries
> of Cleather et al. Black becomes white and white becomes black. Of
> course AAB was up against it in the Krotona TS lodge which she
> headed. How dare she say that she had met one of the Masters, let
> alone be receiving information from them? The TS politics of the day
> were truly revolting to her.

Do you have any first hand accounts of AAB's Krotona stay other than her
own? I would be very interested in seeing them. 

> This situation has further been compounded over the last several
> decades by extraordinary accusations and beliefs held by
> theosophists of a very negative nature about AAB. But in 100% of
> conversations I have had with TS people, none of them can offer me a
> rational or reasoned explanation as to why. It has been the
> conditioning of decades that has caused this unconsciousness and is
> part of the general crystallisation of the entity we call the TS.

I'm afraid that I not following your thought again. Are you saying that
every TS person you have spoken to is negative towards AAB but are
unable to explain why? This strikes me as an extraordinary statement.
My experience has been that TS members have expressed to me a broad
spectrum of opinions concerning AAB and her teachings from very positive
to very negative and much in between. I found most of those
explanations well reasoned--whether they were for, against, or
in-between. 

> No members I have talked to have even read or studied to a
> reasonable depth the works of AAB, let alone HPB's key work, the
> Secret Doctrine. Most of them I find are into peripheral
> interpretors of HPB or lightweight channelled material.

Yes, my experience has also been that most Adyar TS members do not study
the SD. Though, I also have known some who do. 

> If ES members are bleating about material which is 'theirs', that
> AAB supposedly 'stole', let them reveal it. Let Pluto in Sagittarius
> do its work! I suspect it would be an anti-climax and surely no
> earth shattering revelation, and bound to be available in some other
> form elsewhere.

I'm not aware of this. Which ES members are 'bleating' that AAB 'stole'
material that belongs to them? 

> This is the problem and one of the main glamours of supposed
> Aquarian groups (who are actually very Piscean in their approach),
> the glamour of the mystery. This is our secret and no one else is
> supposed to know.

I'm not sure here whether you are referring here to a political decision
to withhold material, or are you making a critical reference to the
inherent literary nature of nineteenth century esotericism. If the
former, what is being withheld? 

> As far as I know, all that AAB used from the ES was this beautiful
> mantram:
>
> "May the Holy Ones, Whose pupils we aspire to become, show us the
> light we seek; give us the strong aid of Their compassion and Their
> wisdom. There is a peace that passeth understanding; it abides in
> the hearts of those who live in the Eternal. There is a power that
> maketh all things new; it lives and moves in those who know the Self
> as one. May that peace brood over us, that power uplift us, till we
> stand where the One Initiator is invoked, till we see His Star shine
> forth. May the peace and the blessing of the Holy Ones pour forth
> over the worlds."
>
> Yet it is entirely conceivable that Djwhal Khul who dictated much
> of the Secret Doctrine to HPB, also wanted this mantram released to
> others who might benefit from it, and did so through AAB. The ES
> was set up a long time before that mantram appeared in print. For
> all we may know, DK may have decided in his wisdom that it was time
> that it was released to the general public and that the ES were
> being a bit precious about it - as they are today. DK may have also
> dictated to HPB some of the early material in the ES.

I have heard it often said that DK dictated much of the SD. What is
your evidence for this? 

> The Great Invocation which had hitherto been in the highest realms
> of the Hierarchy, was translated and released to Humanity in 1945.
> Whats esoteric today is exoteric tomorrow - we are moving very fast
> in our evolution.
>
> My experience from the sidelines mainly is that the ES has quite a
> nasty little shadow that has developed over the years, and comes
> down primarily to power politics which seem to be just as rife today
> as they were back in the 1920's.



> I have tried to collate as much material on my website
> (www.esotericastrologer.org) about the situation of world students
> unable to recognise the golden thread of the Master's teachings. It
> seems to come down to these factors: emotional attachment to ideas,
> compounded by concrete mind and lack of discrimination.
>
> The Masters must wring their hands in exasperation sometimes at
> throwing so many pearls before swine - bogged down in dogma. We are
> all students of the causal, and if there is the spirit of
> separation, division and lack of recognition in our field, what hope
> is there for religious toleration and understanding in the rest of
> the world?
>
> Thankyou Daniel for bringing this to my attention, I hope this sheds
> some more light or opens up a balanced dialogue.
> Phillip Lindsay
>

--j