[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Wry on Blavatsky part one

Feb 01, 2003 10:14 PM
by leonmaurer

Hi Wry,

Pardon me if I appear to be blunt (although, I'll try to be polite :-) -- but 
your statements and assertions below, which seem to have little basis in 
facts, seem to me to be quite fallacious. And, also, appear as if you're 
trying to convince us that you know something theosophists don't, because 
they are following the wrong teacher. If so, does that mean you consider 
yourself the "right great world teacher" now ready to take her place? I 
wonder what AB and AAB, if they were still around, would say about that? :-)

So, I also wonder if this isn't the first introduction to a hidden agenda 
with the purpose of trying to organize theosophists into a new religion -- 
using this forum as its focus -- with you as its high priestess? 

Hadn't AB already tried that -- and failed? Didn't AAB pick up AB's marbles 
-- and turn her pseudo theosophy, and DK's phony "white magic" into a "New 
Age" religion that attracts all the weak minded sheep who need a "leader" or 
"prophet" to bolster their "blind belief"? Didn't this self professed 
teacher further addle their minds with gobbledygook magic, and tell them they 
can save the world by ritual group prayer, by welcoming living messiahs, and 
accepting vicarious atonement's? Is that any different from all the other 
organized priest crafty religions that already exist? Is that the kind of 
new theosophical religion you want to introduce us to? Or, do you have a new 

So, in any event, what gives you the idea that theosophists need a new 
religion in order to fullfill the three objects of the TM -- that they 
already feel is all they can do to "save the world" (or become the helpers of 
those who have a workable plan that might do so)? So, far no such "Master 
Magician" has shown up, and I don't expect one ever will... (At least in this 
forum. ;-) Are you that one? If so, what's the plan? Come up with a good 
one, and I'll be the first to climb aboard. 

But if you can't, what makes you think you can do better than AB or AAB -- 
especially, starting here, in an open forum where all the independent 
theosophical free thinkers hang out -- and who *know* how false any 
"organized religion" can be? Besides, what makes you assume that theosophy, 
as presented by the Masters through the medium of HPB, has ever been 
considered a "religion"? Why do you think the SD is subtitled, "A Synthesis 
of Science, Religion and Philosophy"? In such a synthesis, which part of it 
comes first? Which is more necessary to know or practice? Isn't it self 
evident that they can't be separated? Or, do you have a different view of 
theosophy than most serious students do?

Haven't you studied the SD in depth (as it should be, for one who professes 
to be a teacher of its "Secrets")? Haven't you read the Mahatma Letters? 
Or, are you just making all this up -- your "special knowledge," your 
connection with the same secret society as HPB, your new religion, etc. -- 
out of your own head? Where and what is your "Truth"? I've read all your 
letters to this and other forums, and as yet, while I know what you are 
implying you know, I do not see any evidence that you actually know what you 
are talking about. In fact, judging by your misjudgments of what theosophy 
actually teaches, I'm not sure you know anything useful at all from a 
theosophical, or even a scientific, philosophical or religious point of view. 
If not, I wonder why you have chosen this forum as your platform? Is it, 
that our contradictory arguments with each other and apparent separateness 
(which really isn't the case, since some of us are mavericks who like 
stirring pots to find out who's who and what's what ;-) makes us an easy 
target for someone who want's to bring us together in what she feels is the 
"proper" way to discuss and/or "practice" theosophy as a "religion"? 

Didn't HPB (and also, GB & JC) teach that we each have to practice our own 
individual religion or yoga, to follow our own individual path of necessity, 
and that we are each the only "leader" of our own personal "religion" -- with 
our own higher Self as its only High Priest and "unbiased observer"? Didn't 
JK say exactly the same thing after he broke away from AB's and CWL's so 
called, "theosophical religion" (the LCC)? So, what makes you think JK 
"broke away from HPB"? Wasn't it only that throwback, Christianized 
religious distortion of theosophy that he split from? And, didn't he, from 
then on, teach about traveling the same individual, self chosen "pathless 
path" that HPB pointed out to all her disciples right from the beginning?

Haven't you even read her instructions given to WQJ and RC, as well as to all 
true theosophists in all her conversations and writings? How ignorant or 
knowledgeable are you of the real teachings of theosophy (and it's sister 
wisdom teachings of pure Hermetic occultism and alchemy)? What do you know 
about what HPB taught in her esoteric section? Have you read and understood 
her teachings in the "Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge"? Don't you think 
you should study all her writings, before spouting off about the character of 
HPB, the wisdom of her teachings, or what the Theosophical Movement is all 

Maybe, if we actually knew what you keep beating around the bush implying 
that you know about theosophy and occultism -- some of us who really "know" 
might be able to help you find your path, or your place here, (or even give 
you a boost if you've already found it). But, wouldn't it be wise for you to 
understand that your path is not necessarily our path? Reading between the 
lines of HPB, who directly tells it as it is, whether symbolically or 
metaphorically, is not the same thing as reading between your lines... That 
appear to be nothing but word salads of vague implications and misdirected 
criticisms slippery sliding all around the issues without any direct 
transmission of useful information. 

Could it be, then, that its you who's the one "mixed up and immature"? If 
HPB didn't know how to present the ancient knowledge and wisdom properly, why 
don't you show us how she should have done it? Could it be that she's the 
one who has brought us the modern "time relevant" teaching, and its you who 
are sneakily and slyly trying to drag us back to a 12th century version of 
organized religion and worship of Gods and rituals -- that theosophy 
completely denies and deplores. 

So, maybe you should wake up, my fair lady, and start to either teach us 
something worthwhile about theosophy we don't already know, give us a useful 
yoga -- or tell us exactly what your hidden agenda is. So, far your intents, 
while intentionally cloudy on the surface, are as transparent as glass to 
some of us. My take is that you wish to capture the members of this forum as 
your own private ashram or sangha -- with you as the Guru-ji. Well, go ahead 
and try. It would be interesting to see whether or not you really can live 
up to what you imply about your profound occult wisdom (that you always seem 
to be ready to "talk about later" -- but never do). In the meantime, why 
don't you back up what you do say and show us how outdated theosophy really 
is? For starters, how about telling us where are its dogmas? What does it 
teach or present wrong?

So far, as I see it, and in spite of your unfounded opinions to the contrary 
-- Theosophy is working just fine... Exactly the way the real Masters of the 
Great Light Brotherhood wanted it to go. And, I'm certain that they and 
their disciples and brothers (who are here watching you now ;-) would be 
perfectly satisfied if each true theosophist *independently* follows the 
three objects of the Theosophical Movement, thoroughly learns the Mysteries 
of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis (and, thus, the "magic" of "compassionate 
creation") while practicing the heart doctrine -- through their own "self 
devised and self determined study and efforts." Those that follow that path, 
as Krishnamurti did, need no conniving gurus to take charge of theosophy and 
turn it backwards into a group oriented religious order with all kinds of 
rituals, dogmas and worshipful Gods. All we need now is another AB, CWL, 
AAB, and their spinoff "false Prophets" to form another splinter group 
religion that parrots all the rest of the deific worshippers who can do 
nothing but engage in theological and physical wars among each other. That 
kind of separateness is the last thing theosophy, or the world needs. 

So, maybe you should go back and study what theosophy is all about and what 
it teaches before you try to fix what is not broken... Could this "fixing" be 
for the purpose of either satisfying your own personal ego -- or 
(intentionally or innocently) do the work of the Dugpas and false prophets? 
And, if so, is it your intention to split apart all the true, independent 
theosophists, by breaking their resolve to stick with the fundamental 
teachings of HPB, and turn them into sheep that get buried in your personal 
new religion -- that puts the starting point for spiritual enlightenment on 
the selfish "perfection of the physical plane." That's just the opposite of 
theosophy -- which sees all the planes as one trinity, quaternary, septenary, 
etc., that ALL have to be aligned and harmonized simultaneously to achieve 
self realization or enlightenment and, thereby, become useful to the 
Theosophical Movement. 

Although, there's nothing wrong with such bottom up "Zen" practices that you 
seem to be talking about... That is, so long as all the other levels of 
consciousness are equally worked on from the top down. But, that is just 
plain, all encompassing theosophy as taught by HPB and the Masters. So, do 
we really need your new religion? As far as I can see, all major organized 
religions have been "fine tuned all through the ages" and "turned into dogma" 
simply to maintain the positions and support of its crafty priests and their 
"insider" minions, property and infrastructures. So, let's not turn 
theosophy into that. Transcendence can come automatically when one "gets it" 
entirely on one's own. There's no such thing as true and lasting 
transcendence by ritual, or group worship -- for so long as the mind is not 
awakened to the true nature of reality, such ritually and "mob psychological" 
group induced ecstasy, mistaken as transcendence, is a will of the wisp... 
No more than an empty taste of the real thing -- that can only come about 
through devoted attention to one's self chosen path toward self realization 
and enlightenment. But, none of it can happen until one thoroughly knows the 
entire true nature (scientific, philosophical and religious) of what one is 
being enlightened about, why and what for. So, let's hope hope we can just 
leave it at that, and get on with theosophy -- as it was originally taught to 
those who taught HPB how to teach it to us at this time and place in human 
history and the state of human consciousness -- which I doubt has changed 
much in the last century from the way HPB saw it then, and predicted it would 
still be today.

So, I hope you take all that in the true spirit of brotherhood.

Considering the busyness of your work, please don't think you have to answer 
all the questions above... Most of which are purely rhetorical, and asked 
solely for the benefit of those theosophists not yet ready to think for 
themselves. :-) 

Best wishes,


In a message dated 01/28/03 3:11:13 PM, writes:

>Hi. I personally do not believe this is the time on earth for people to
>practice individual religions, but most people will not give up their 
>until they have something to replace it with. All major organic religions
>are designed, tested and fine-tuned over many hundreds of years by many
>individuals, not just one, to convey material to individuals of various
>levels of understanding by the means of allegory in story, art and ritual,
>in such a way that it can be organically assimilated onto their functioning
>in such a way that there is TRANSCENDENCE. True, when people interpret
>this symbolism literally, it crystallizes into dogma, and this is a big
>problem, but at least there is a change for certain material to be conveyed.
>With theosophy, it is different. It does NOT succeed in doing this.. 
>was too mixed up. She had certain knowledge, but did NOT understand how
>to present it. She was quite developed in some ways, but in other ways,
>she was spiritually IMMATURE. This is why the conditions she established,
>as part of an interconnected continuum, led to what someone on here recently
>dismissed as "the Krishnamurti incident." Any mature spiritual person would
>need to reject her teaching in order to fulfil the prophecy of actually
>becoming a great world teacher.
>Just as, if religion is not working, there is are reasons, so also, if
>theosophy is not working there are reasons, but all of the reasons are
>not exactly the same. I believe she was successful in that she brought
>eastern teachings to the west at a certain time, but as far as achieving
>the aim of a universal brotherhood, theosophy will not work unless there
>is a different approach. I am willing to enquire into this with members
>of this list. The Order Of The Star was dissolved by its leader. It is
>over. You are acting as if still exists, but it does not. It is impossible
>to work this all out without enquiring deeply. If no one is interested
>in doing this, nothing will change. This is sad. 
>No Buddhist, Hindu, Roman Catholic, Jew or Muslim or whatever is going
>to give up his FINELY-TUNED, though perhaps time-appropriate religion,
>which, at the very least, can create a state of deep reverence which 
>within, no matter how imperfect it is, to read the confused writings of
>Madame Blavatsky. In my opinion, theosophy in its present form will not
>accomplish the aim for which it was designed. Wry

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application