Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00426)

Perry:

Many years ago, my first exposure to Theosophy came through reading 
Leadbeater's books. I later came across Ken Small at Far Horizons 
Theosophical Camp in Northern California, where he and Lina Psaltis gave me 
some books by G. de Purucker. These books proved helpful in broadening my 
thinking, and made Blavatsky's writings understandable to me. From there, I 
read more of the core literature, and came across comparisons of 
Blavatsky's Theosophy with Leadbeater's. The most colorful comparisons 
were in old issues of the O.E. Library Critic by Stokes. The term 
"Neo-Theosophy" was used to describe how Leadbeater's writings diverged 
from the original.

When I was first reading the comparisons, I would also use the term 
"Neo-Theosophy," but have since come to realize that it is a derogatory 
term. It doesn't just say "this is something different," but seems to imply 
"this is something extremely inferior." If when I was steeped in 
Leadbeater's writings and had been exposed to little else, I would have 
responded unfavorable to the term and found it alienating. On the other 
hand, simply begin given some of Purucker's works and exposed to the depths 
that I later came to see in them, I found it ease to move on and broaden my 
theosophical thinking. If it were not for Leadbeater's writings, I would 
not have been initially drawn to Theosophy, but equally important was the 
manner in which I was approached to share other ideas also of value. And by 
the way, the best of his books, which I highly recommend to theosophical 
students, is FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY, based upon a class he 
gave at Point Loma on THE SECRET DOCTRINE in the 1920's when he was a 
regular theosophical student, before he became international head of the 
Theosophical Society. (This is the Point Loma Society, tracing its history 
back through the Judge side of the Judge/Olcott split in the 1890's.)

Official journals are the mouthpiece of an organization's leadership, and 
would reflect their view on Theosophy and what is proper theosophical 
discussion. This is from THEIR point of view, as people leading the 
organization with their own viewpoints. If something is not given space in 
such a journal, it is because the editors deem it inappropriate, off topic, 
or offensive from THEIR point of view.

This does not preclude any number of independent journals expressing other 
viewpoints. It's just that the other journals do not have access to funds 
from donations and membership dues and do not have access to mailing and 
email addresses of members. But independent journals can be created and 
thrive nevertheless, crossing organizational boundaries and reaching people 
of many backgrounds. Each journal can express a certain viewpoint from its 
own perspective and collectively all the journals can cover the full 
spectrum of viewpoints. It's in the mailing lists, thought, where every 
possible view can meet face-to-face with others, as long as the listowner 
doesn't moderate it, filtering things, enforcing his own slant to how ideas 
should be aired.

-- Eldon

At 06:32 PM 8/22/2004, you wrote:

> Hello Eldon and All,
> Your points are definitely ways I tend to lean towards myself.
>
> I have no problem with people studying neo-theosophy or any other
> particular philosophy, the main point being its not done in a dogmatic
> and closed fashion as you say the writings of HPB are simply giving us
> some clues and I tend to think the nature of her writing style leads
> you away from belief and following much the way Krishnamurti's
> teachings do.
> The same cannot be said of neo-theosophy which developed devotional
> belief based mindset's imo.
>
> So for me the issue of leaving the society was based not on having the
> society become a HPB only society but rather a society that allowed
> free and open debate and philosophical enquiry not only in the
> lectures or study groups but also in its PUBLICATIONS this being the
> main objection I have with the Adyar TS.
>
> If the principal of freedom of opinion is one that is not only a
> platitude in the society then why are articles critical of CWL and
> neo-theosophy `not allowed' in its publications and yet it's perfectly
> fine to criticise HPB in them?
> Perhaps I got this wrong but theres been no reply from any Adyar
> people as to the veracity of this suggestion.
>
> As I said before if this principal was upheld by the leadership
> without paternalistic censorship I would rejoin.
>
> But I've heard no assurances so far .... I wish I could be proved
> wrong on this but as far as I can see it seems to be the case.
>
> Perry