Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00263)

Pedro,

Thanks for your posting at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/26392

Concerning the two extracts you gave from Mme. Blavatsky,
I ask you how you would reconcile what Blavatsky says 
in those extracts (which I have numbered as EXTRACTS
1 and 2 below) with the additional 5 extracts I also 
give below from Blavatsky and Koot Hoomi.

Is Blavatsky saying contradictory things in EXTRACTS 1 
and 2 when you compare them with EXTRACTS 3 thru 7?

Or are we comparing apples to oranges when looking at
the meaning or various meanings of the 7 extracts?

Or should we view all of these extracts from some other
vantage point?

It seems to me that on one hand that we should avoid setting
up "dogmas" but to go to the other extreme of letting any
vagary be called Theosophy or Theosophical is also not 
desirable. 

I also call your attention to the three words WITHIN
CERTAIN LIMITS in EXTRACT 2. Do these three words
qualify the meaning of the extract overall? And if so,
how?

When reading the 7 extracts BELOW, consider also the
other relevant extracts found at:

On Pseudo-Theosophy and Pseudo-Adepts
http://blavatskyarchives.com/onpseudotheosophy.htm

Daniel

EXTRACT 1

"We are all fellow-students, more or less advanced; 
but no one belonging to the Theosophical Society 
ought to count himself as more than, at best, a 
pupil-teacher—one who has no right to dogmatize."
(Letter to the Second American Convention, 1888)

EXTRACT 2

"Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither possible 
nor desirable. It is diversity of opinion, WITHIN
CERTAIN LIMITS, that keeps the Theosophical Society 
a living and a healthy body, its many other
ugly features notwithstanding. Were it not, also, 
for the existence of a large amount of uncertainty 
in the minds of students of Theosophy, such healthy 
divergencies would be impossible, and the Society 
would degenerate into a sect, in which a narrow and
stereotyped creed would take the place of the living 
and breathing spirit of Truth and an ever growing 
Knowledge." (same source as above)BOLD ADDED.

EXTRACT 3

". . . A new and rapidly growing danger. . . is threatening . . . the 
spread of the pure Esoteric Philosophy and knowledge. . . . I
allude 
to those charlatanesque imitations of Occultism and Theosophy. . . . 
By pandering to the prejudices of people, and especially by adopting 
the false ideas of a personal God and a personal, carnalized Saviour, 
as the groundwork of their teaching, the leaders of this 'swindle' 
(for such it is) are endeavoring to draw men to them and in
particular 
to turn Theosophists from the true path."
". . . A close examination will assuredly reveal. . . materials 
largely stolen . . . from Theosophical writings. . . [and] distorted 
and falsified so as to be palmed off on the unwary as revelations of 
new and undreamed of truths. But many will neither have the time nor 
the opportunity for such a thorough investigation; and before they 
become aware of the imposture they may be led far from the 
Truth. . . . Nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the 
garbled and distorted versions disfigured to suit the prejudices and 
tastes of men in general." 
H. P. Blavatsky, E.S. Instruction No. I., 1889. 


EXTRACT 4

"I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by
Mr. 
H[ume]. I read his three essays or chapters on God (?) cosmogony and 
glimpses of the origin of things in general, and had to cross out 
nearly all. He makes of us Agnostics!! We do not believe in God 
because so far, we have no proof, etc. This is preposterously 
ridiculous: if he publishes what I read, I will have H.P.B. or Djual 
Khool deny the whole thing; as I cannot permit our sacred philosophy 
to be so disfigured. He says that people will not accept the whole 
truth; that unless we humour them with a hope that there may be 
a 'loving Father and creator of all in heaven' our philosophy will be 
rejected a priori. In such a case the less such idiots hear of our 
doctrines the better for both. If they do not want the whole truth
and 
nothing but the truth, they are welcome. But never will they find us
--
(at any rate) -- compromising with, and pandering to public 
prejudices." 
Master Koot Hoomi, The Mahatma Letters, 2nd ed., Letter 54 

EXTRACT 5

". . . You have heard of and read about a good many Seers, in the
past 
and present centuries, such as Swedenborg, Boehme, and others. Not
one 
among the number but thoroughly honest, sincere, and as intelligent, 
as well educated; aye, even learned. Each of them in addition to
these 
qualities, has or had . . . a 'Guardian' and a Revelator -- under 
whatever 'mystery' and 'mystic name' -- whose mission it is -- or has 
been to spin out to his spiritual ward -- a new system embracing all 
the details of the world of Spirit. Tell me, my friend, do you know
of 
two that agree? And why, since truth is one, and that putting
entirely 
the question of discrepancies in details aside -- we do not find them 
agreeing even upon the most vital problems -- those that have 
either 'to be, or not to be' -- and of which there can be no two 
solutions?"  
Master Koot Hoomi, The Mahatma Letters, 2nd ed., Letter 48 

EXTRACT 6

"Our doctrine knows no compromises. It
either affirms or denies, for it never
teaches but that which it knows to be
the truth."
The Mahatma Letters, 2nd ed., Letter 10

EXTRACT 7

"Esoteric Buddhism" [by A.P. Sinnett] . . . is
an excellent book [on Theosophy], and has done
still more excellent work. But this does not alter
the fact that it contains some mistaken notions. . . ."

"The time has arrived for the explanation of some
matters in this direction."

"Mistakes have now to be checked by the ORIGINAL
teachings and CORRECTED. . . ."
H.P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Vol. I