Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00466)

Hi Daniel,

It is indeed puzzling. As is: 

>>The Adyar 
> Society adopted in very large measure the 'second generation' 
> literature of Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater and others. As time 
> went on this considerably diverged from the original teachings. >>

Though the 'second generation' books are still published by the TS, I
don't think it is fair to say that this literature was adopted by the
TS. In fact, this literature would seem to be on a decline and
Krishnamurti and Blavatsky are on the rise. 

Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> On the website of THE BLAVATSKY TRUST,
> one reads the following:
> 
> ================================================
> 
> The Theosophical Movement 
> 
> Since the theosophical movement was started by 
> the inauguration of the Theosophical Society 
> in New York in 1875 the movement has fragmented.
> 
> There is now the Adyar Society, Point Loma 
> Publications, the Theosophical Society at 
> Pasadena (which moved there from Corvina) 
> and the United Lodge of Theosophists based 
> in Los Angeles. The Society at Pasadena was 
> formed from a nucleus of personnel from the 
> original Point Loma Society which was disbanded. 
> Point Loma Publications Inc still, however, 
> operates independently. This fragmentation of 
> the movement is important because each part went 
> its own way in the matter of teaching. The Adyar 
> Society adopted in very large measure the 'second generation' 
> literature of Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater and others. As time 
> went on this considerably diverged from the original teachings. The 
> Point Loma literature is largely that of Godfried de Puruker. 
> Originally this was based mainly on The Secret Doctrine but latterly 
> many ideas, viz the peregrinations of the Ego round the planets, 
> became an important part of his teaching. No evidence for this exists 
> in the Secret Doctrine, The Corvina theosophists hereto have 
> preserved the original teachings intact and so have the United Lodge 
> of Theosophists but in certain areas, for example the Mahatma Letters 
> to Sinnett, they have reservations as to the authenticity of the 
> letters.
> 
> The point of these differences is that, to a very large extent, they 
> have come about through personal views and preferences regarding the 
> teachings. In some cases major divergences from the original as 
> commentaries have been written into much publicized literature, with 
> the consequence that much of what is now regarded Theosophy on a 
> worldwide scale, is in fact not in accordance with the original 
> teachings.
> Quoted from:
> http://www.blavatskytrust.org.uk/html/nf_bt3.htm
> =============================================================
> 
> Some important points are made here. But I think there
> are also few errors in this text. For example:
> 
> " . . . in certain areas, for example the Mahatma Letters to Sinnett, 
> they have reservations as to the authenticity of the letters."
> 
> Who are "they"? If "they" refers to the United Lodge of Theosophists 
> I am somewhat puzzled since I have never heard any ULT student 
> actually question "the authenticity of the letters."
> 
> Could Dallas or some other ULT student clarify this?
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc