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

Re: Some Random Remarks on one of Perry's Comments

Sep 15, 2004 11:51 PM
by Koshek Swaminathan

I agree that there really isn't enough comparitive study or open 
study at all among Theosophists. This usually leads to assumptions 
about Theosophy. 

For instance, few Theosophists will look at source material about the 
Seven Rays. About two hours away from Adyar in Pondicherry, there was 
a yogi by the name of Sri Aurobindo who did a study of the Seven Rays 
from doing research on the Vedas which is the earlist source material 
to descirbe them. hE WAS NOT A tHEOSOPHIST.The debth of his 
explanation completely out does Woods book and is so completely 
different in so many ways from the Besant/Leadbeater/Bailey teachings 
that one is forced to question whether the later teachings were 
simply made up. It is more likely that HPB's refrence to the Seven 

A theosophist by the name of Subramanian Aiyer also wrote many works 
on theosophy looking at source material from orignal hindu works. 
None of his books are published anymore but old copies still exist as 
I'm finding them here in Chennai. When he was alive he was one of the 
most respected theosophists of his time but eventually left the 
society to join a "Great White Brotherhood" and has been forgotten.

It would be more helpful for Theosophy if we study older works of 
Mahayana Buddhism and Kabbalah as well. The more "magical" aspects of 
all these old teachings seem much closer to HPB's theosophy than any 
modern explanations and books that have been published since. The 
avoidance of ancient "magical" writings seems to be a real problem 
with Theosophists these days who avoid anything of a symbolic nature. 

And finally, theosophists should study Plato and the works of the Neo-
platonists, a study of which is almost assumed by the writer of Isis 
and SD. 

That's my 2cents,


--- In, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> Perry,
> Thanks for your posting at:
> I want to make a number of comments on what
> you have written.
> You write:
> "Why does Adyar seem to disallow the critical 
> examination of these clear contraditions in its 
> publications when it claims it is really
> concerned with free spiritual search and enquiry?"
> But if Adyar is REALLY concerned with "free spiritual
> search and enquiry" why not allow articles and
> discussions on even a MUCH WIDER array of subjects?
> Why not do studies on what different theosophical
> writers have contributed? Take Bailey, Steiner,
> Purucker, Prophet, etc. If the Society encourages truth
> seeking then why not discuss all of these writers
> and their teachings and even much more in the Society's
> magazines, publications, etc.?
> Why couldn't the Society put out a book on Leadbeater
> and invite contributions from members and non-members
> with diverse point of view? Maybe some writer (probably
> not Pedro) could then clearly explain why a reasonable
> person should ignore all the historical records
> that indicate CWL was born in 1854. etc. etc. If
> theosophists are really truth seekers, such a book would
> at least provide interested seekers with much to
> think about and ponder on.
> Why doesn't the Theosophist as well as other theosophical
> magazines do a better job of reviewing hundreds and
> thousands of excellent books on many esoteric and
> theosophical subjects.
> Every year scores of good books come out on such subjects
> and I never see even a mention of them in theosophical
> publications?
> For example, any person calling himself a theosophist
> should read the book titled IN SEARCH OF THE PRIMORDIAL
> A remarkable book and most theosophists I've mentioned
> the book to know nothing about it and seem even less
> interested in reading it!
> I could list good books all day long....
> I will end this post by commenting on the Tillett
> biography of Leadbeater. As far as I know, THE 
> THEOSOPHIST never reviewed the book. Why? Here is
> a book that deals with a major theosophical writer
> of the Adyar Society. Shouldn't members be informed
> about this book? If the Society really believes there
> is no Religion (belief??) higher than Truth, why not
> allow this book to be discussed in the pages of the
> Society's official magazine. If Tillett has distorted
> the historical record or has not given both sides of 
> the argument, then a lengthy book review setting the
> historical record straight and showing where Tillett
> made mistakes, etc., would seem to me to be a MUST.
> I hope one day not too far from now Tillett's 1000 page
> dissertation of Leadbeater may find its way into print
> for interested theosophists to read.
> Daniel

[Back to Top]

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