FW: Theos-World Fw: Pseudo-theosophy of AAB & CWL
Jan 14, 2003 12:27 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
This reply had bounced for some reason, so I'm forwarding it back
through theos-talk, where I think it had originated in the first place.
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 5:17 PM
To: 'aabhpb <email@example.com>'
Subject: RE: Theos-World Fw: Pseudo-theosophy of AAB & CWL
No, attitudes of fundamentalist theosophists.
Sadly, I have to concur with your observations of intolerance in the
Adyar TS. I have seen many instances among members of intolerance
towards other Theosophical organizations, towards fellow members within
the same organization, and even towards fellow members within the same
Lodge. However when I look closely at these people, I find that they
vary widely in their "doctrinal beliefs" and have to conclude that their
'fundamentalists' beliefs has little to do with their actions. Rather,
they seem to be acting out of loyalty to an authority and/or political
center of power or influence within the TS. They may give Theosophical
teachings lip service when justifying their actions, but the real issue
is loyalty. For them, loyalty to the authority and/or the institution
becomes more important than what that authority or institution may
actually represent. On the other hand, to be fair, I also know many
Theosophists who conscientiously keep their eye towards more universal
values such as altruism, compassion and human solidarity.
I am saying that I can see why he may have been branded a 'pseudo
theosophist' because of books like 'Man whence where whither'. Most
of his other ones are OK, but that one lost the plot a bit. Hence, I
interpret 'pseudo theosophy' in that light.
Yet many have told me over the years that CWL's writings have been a
deeply spiritual inspiration to them. So, perhaps one's pseudo
theosophy is real theosophy to another. Speaking for myself, I would
not presume to tell someone what book is best for his or her spiritual
path. Every now and again, a member of our study group hears about and
becomes interested in some book or writer that I at some point had
rejected or put aside. In those cases, I like to get them to tell me
what they got out of the readings. I always learn interesting new
things about them, the book, and myself.
Most theosophists who do not recognise anything other than their
core material, and vehemently reject everything else. All of this
material I have studied and deeply respect. But I also recognise the
Bailey material as a continuation from the same source.
Their personal core material, or the core material or their
organization? My experience has been that Theosophists are generally
very eclectic in their reading, though they may be very loyal to a
particular group that happens to be associated with a particular core of
literature. One bizarre example that comes to mind is an old
theosophist (now passed away) who was well read in Leadbeater, Besant,
Bailey, Eseubius and Crowley. He thought very highly of all five
writers. But his loyalty was solidly with the ES.
No, I am not, I have had the same cross section as you. However,
those I have spoken with about the anti AAB sentiment, who know
something about it, dont understand its roots or can explain how it
all started with any reason.
Outside of AAB's account, which I have read, what have you been able to
document that these people missed?
The members in the 1920's who knew Bailey. Their writings testify to
that. Ex Es members personally known to me over the years.
I've also heard these stories over the years, but have kept in mind that
they are distant memories of people with their own agendas and
loyalties. What have you found in the form of source documents? BTW, I
don't think any of those people from that era are alive any longer.
ES 'secrets' - what they claim AAB used - if that is the case they
are no longer secrets and therefore widely available to the public.
I'm afraid that this is the problem with channeled material. Its actual
source will always be in question, thus raising questions that give rise
to criticisms. There are several possibilities for the sources of AAB's
writings. Here are four relevant to our discussion: 1) an outside source
(i.e. DK or some entity pretending to be DK); 2) pirated from ES
material in her possession; 3) an unconscious outpouring through
automatic writing; 4) some combination of the above. The first
possibility is logically unsustainable for the lack of evidence outside
of itself. i.e. it is sort of like arguing that the Bible is the word of
God because the Bible says so, or that it is the work of the Devil
pretending to be God, because God wouldn't say that. Christian
theologians have been wrestling for centuries with the same problem, and
end up resorting to circular reasoning. Ultimately, such beliefs must
come though faith--not reasoning. For the second possibility, the
existence of the ES material is documentable and there is no doubt that
she was familiar with it. Logic and common sense suggests that these
documents are the most likely source. The third alternative may also be
sustainable by drawing upon extant studies concerning the nature of
automatic writing and its product.
This brings me to an observation I made some years ago
concerning an obvious difference between HPB's writings and those based
upon a channeled authority (Like AAB's) or through psychic revelation
(like CWL's). In HPB's books, one would be hard put to find a single
point she makes, or a single page of her writings that is not referenced
to some *source* scientific or philosophical work, or religious
scripture. My point is this--whatever one may make of HPB's ideas or
how she may have acquired them, one is able to compare them to the
learned literature of the day. In other words, with HPB's writings, the
reader has the means to check the accuracy and evaluate her statements
against sources outside of her writings. With channeled material and
psychic revelations, one has no other alternative than to accept or
reject the information as a matter of faith. i.e. "does it speak to me?"
"Does it ring true?" "Does it inspire me?" etc.
> I have heard it often said that DK dictated much of the SD. What
is your evidence for this?
Something that is very difficult to prove and only a student of both
the SD and DK through AAB can tell you the profound resonances and
relationships which exist. Cosmic Fire is one of the keys to the SD -
it has further Stanzas of Dzyan added. But most of the TS
fundamentalists have neither the head nor the heart to tackle such
Which brings me back to my observation above.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application