Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00402)

During the early and mid 1880s, A.P. Sinnett and 
several other Theosophists had written various 
expositions of the Theosophical teachings. HPB 
in "The Secret Doctrine" stated quite forcefully 
that they had indulged in "wild and fanciful 
speculation": 

"The publication of many of the facts herein stated 
has been rendered necessary by the wild and fanciful 
speculation in which many Theosophists and students 
of mysticism have indulged, during the last few 
years, in their endeavour to, as they imagined, 
work out a complete system of thought from the 
few facts previously communicated to them." 
S.D., original edition, Vol I, p. viii 

And Master K.H. in his August 1888 letter to 
Olcott had also written on this same subject: 

"I have also noted, your thoughts about the 
'Secret Doctrine.' Be assured that what she 
[HPB] has not annotated from scientific and 
other works, we have given or suggested to her. 
Every mistake or erroneous notion, corrected 
and explained by her from the works of other 
theosophists was corrected by me, or under 
my instruction. It is a more valuable work 
than its predecessor, an epitome of occult 
truths that will make it a source of information 
and instruction for the earnest student for l
ong years to come. . . ." Letters from the 
Masters of the Wisdom, Series I, p. 47 

Surely one can safely conclude that
both Blavatsky and KH believed that
expositions of Theosophy could contain
"wild and fanciful speculation" and
mistakes and erroneous notions. 

Notice that both Blavatsky and KH
thought that the wild speculations and
erroneous notions were important enough
that they called attention to them
and even made corrections.

Surely one of the implications of their 
statements is that they possessed the 
genuine teaching. And that they were
in a position where they could call
not only attention to the erroneous
ideas but could even give corrections.

Were Blavatsky and KH setting
up dogmas and infallible revelations?

Therefore can one not reasonably conclude that
since the 1880s when Blavatsky and
KH made those statements, there have
probably been other books on Theosophy
which have given out wild and fanciful
speculation and erroneous notions on
Theosophy? 

How would a present day student
determine what is a correct notion
of Theosophy as opposed to a erroneous
notion of Theosophy?

It seems to me that these questions
and similar ones should be pondered 
by serious students of Theosophy.

Daniel
Blavatsky Study Center
http://hpb.cc