Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00390)

Hello Pablo,
The pivotal issue that arose for me in my own studies was that the 
teachings I was led to believe the teachings of the Adept teachers of 
H.P.B were the same teachings given through the writings C.W 
Leadbeater and Annie Besant these in fact contradicted and were 
completely different in many cases to those originally given out by 
both the Mahatma's themselves and HPB.

Now that is an important piece of information for any student to know 
about.

Many students and members of the Adyar TS believe the books of C W 
Leadbeater and Annie Besant are these same teachings of Blavatsky and 
her teachers.
This is not the case however.

Would you agree that being able to publish articles and comparisons 
of these different teachings should be an absolute right for students 
in theosophical journals and publications?

If the society disallows this sort of valid comparisons to be 
published in its journals it is in effect gagging a valid enquiry 
into truth.
This is my main issue with the Adyar Society.

If these type of articles were published it will leave the new 
students informed and empowered to then make their own choice as to 
what teaching (if any) seems to have more or less veracity.

It's not a question of pushing a dogmatic view which is the spin that 
is put on it by some!

But rather a question of academic integrity and responsibility as I 
see it.

The Society claims to be an absolute champion of freedom of thought?!?

It also is disrespectful to the tradition of the Adepts to 
intentionally misrepresent it in way.

But because in theosophy we are encouraged away from blind belief in 
any form this tradition of the Adepts is simply there for people to 
examine at the bar of their own reason and completely free to accept 
or reject it as they choose.

Perry





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Pablo Sender <pasender@y...> wrote:
> 
> Hi to all
> 
>  
> 
> I think that Theosophy cannot be compared with religions and its 
becoming, because religions have "official sacred scriptures" and 
Theosophy hasn't it. 
> 
> Let me put an example. Blavatsky said that Jokob Boehme was a 
theosophist. If you read his teaching, you will see they have a few 
similarities with modern Theosophy as a body of teachings. But its 
spirit (of Boehme teachings) has all to do with Theosophy. Now, if 
you read Krishnamurti teachings, for instance, you will find several 
identities with Boehme teachings, so H.P.B could say that 
Krishnamurti was a theosophist too (this is not a speculation, 
similarities between they do exist). And could you say that 
Krishnamurti teachings are Theosophy?
> 
> I think it is a mistake take Theosophy in an academic way, because 
it become dead, limited, and then orthodoxy arises. Theosophy is not 
a philosophy system, concrete and delimited; it is much more than 
that. People that know me can say I love Blavatsky teachings and I 
think her writings are deeper and more inspiring than most of 
other "sages". But I think that Theosophy is beyond Blavatsky 
herself, and make Theosophy a Blavatskyan system, excluding all other 
development, is a mistake. 
> 
> Of course, we must develop our discrimination in order to realize 
what Theosophy is and what it is not. But, if the parameters will 
be "to say that that Blavatsky said" we are wrong.
> 
> Apologies if I look harsh, but my knowledge of English words and 
grammar is very limited.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Pablo
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> Dear Krishtar:
> 
> Sorry if you extracted from what I write any arrogance. I am not 
intending,
> nor am I interested in that.
> 
> I realize if I speak plainly, or quote from the "original 
teachings," (which
> have always been available) it rubs some the "wrong way." 
> 
> I present, as far as I am able, what THEOSOPHY says. If there are 
any faults
> they are of course mine. They are not of THEOSOPHY. 
> 
> But I would encourage all to really study THEOSOPHY. It is so 
valuable.
> 
> You are right that we all study at our own chosen pace. And we all 
chose to
> adopt such aspects of the philosophy as please us. But such 
individual
> choosing may leave "gaps," and later on, those become clearer. 
> 
> Just cast an eye at the last 50 or 100 years during which there has 
been an
> intense review the history of the development of Christian sects, 
protests
> and divisions -- and, the well known fact, that it is now difficult 
after
> some 2,000 year to secure original texts. 
> 
> The Nag-Hemadri and the Dead-Sea scrolls have embroiled scholars 
for years
> now. Further, as old texts (gospels and "orthodox" MSS, were copied 
or
> translated, amendments and changes of meaning were introduced. (When
> compared to older versions.)
> 
> In the past 125 years of THEOSOPHY we have seen, on a small scale, 
similar
> things happening. Analogies and comparables. 
> 
> Facts don't repair "ruptures" but people do, if they consider that 
they may
> have accepted information that was inaccurate for some time. Now is 
a chance
> to verify and alter such conclusions, or protest them. 
> 
> You seem to protest my method of offering comments, but not the 
facts in
> themselves? Am I right ? I am truly sorry if in any way I have 
annoyed or,
> ruffled anyone, as I would rather be the one that is "ruffled," if 
I am in
> error. But, I notice that 2 other persons were involved in this 
exchange:
> Konstantin and Frank. 
> 
> I only present what I have discovered and let those facts tell 
their own
> tale. I don't think anyones' guesses make up for inaccuracies and 
incorrect
> opinions. I can only go to the documents and the records made by
> contemporaries. I don't think any "hate" is involved. Annoyance at
> inaccuracies -- yes, but not "hate." All adjustments of facts ought 
to be
> conducted dispassionately. 
> 
> I considered what you said a good time ago and felt that it was 
better to
> provide accurate information that all could check, rather than let
> misinformation (of course in my opinion) continue, unremarked. I am 
always
> open to correction and welcome it. 
> 
> Thank you for your mind consideration.
> 
> Dallas
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Correo Yahoo!
> Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ˇgratis! 
> ˇAbrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]