Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00423)

Just to set the record straight... 

First, let me say, there can only be ONE "Theosophy" or "Divine Wisdom" -- 
which can never be reinterpreted. And, therefore, Theosophy is the TRUTH, the 
whole TRUTH, and nothing but the TRUTH. Thus, since "There is no Religion 
Higher than TRUTH" -- not all writings by supposed "theosophists" or religious 
"gurus" or "priests," yogis, lamas, metaphysicians, Sufis, spiritualists, 
psychical researchers, kabbalists, etc., contains, necessarily, that complete 
TRUTH... 

Thus, it follows, one must question every such writing against the 
fundamental basis of theosophical absolutes -- which their writers either have respected 
or they have not... All supposed "contact with the Masters" to the contrary 
notwithstanding. Obviously, alleged authority gives no weight to theosophical 
teachings -- which must be judged solely on their own merits.

I have been loosely associated with the United Lodge of Theosophists for more 
than 35 years. During that time I have studied and lectured on various 
subjects at a number of their Lodges from New York to Los Angeles (including some 
Lodges of the Theosophical Society). I have also read and studied -- for 
whatever values they may have -- almost every book by every writer mentioned below, 
plus the writings of almost every ancient and modern writer on occultism, 
science and philosophy mentioned by Blavatsky in both Isis unveiled and the 
Secret Doctrine. 

Never once in all of my many years working with ULT did I even hear any 
mention of books NOT to be studied by students of theosophy... Although I have 
heard suggested, and suggested myself (with good reason), that all students of 
theosophy should start their study at the beginning -- as it was given out by the 
Chohan Masters directly through H. P. Blavatsky and her Adept teachers -- 
since it is entirely consistent with the writings and esoteric teachings of all 
the ancient Masters and Adepts from Thoth-Hermes to Pythagorus, Plato, 
Plotinus, Paracelsus, Lao Tse, Buddha, etc., as well as the Kabballah in its original 
Egyptian, Sanskrit or Hebrew languages -- which are either graphically and/or 
tonally descriptive in themselves. And, then, to use that study as a basis of 
comparison, and as a means of questioning every writing that came after (or 
even before) Blavatsky that was NOT consistent with those ancient teachings and 
their common "Fundamental Principals." 

In fact, ULT not only does not prevent its associates from studying any book 
by any theosophical (or pseudo theosophical) writer past or present -- since 
it emphasizes in its Declaration that to achieve self realization, one must use 
one's own self devised and self determined study and effort... But, as its 
purpose is to "spread broadcast the original teachings of theosophy," as laid 
down by Blavatsky and Judge -- that implies, reading any book referenced by HPB, 
whether or not it was in agreement with the fundamental teachings, for 
comparative purposes... Implying, that any other later book purportedly based on 
theosophy or allied subjects can be similarly studied and compared.

For the serious student... It should be noted that the "Secret Doctrine" is 
the only modern theosophical book that was intentionally written (given the 
inadequacies of the English language) in a coded form of typographic notation, 
that only in its original printed form, carefully edited in galleys by both 
Blavatsky and the Masters, contains all the keys necessary to enable the 
"intuitive student" to penetrate the "dead letter writings" to their inner esoteric 
metaphysical, philosophical, religious and scientific meanings. 

No other edited version of the SD (or its verbatim reprinting on the 
Internet) nor its interpretation by later writers, many of whom were direct students 
of Blavatsky, comes even close to disclosing that fundamental reality -- which 
can only be realized within ones own higher mind and can never be described in 
words alone. The typographical notations in the SD follows the advice by HPB 
that a full understanding of the true metaphysics of both Cosmogenesis and 
Anthropogenesis can only be acquired by reading "in and around the words and 
between the lines" of its writings. Hint: Using those notations as graphical and 
tonal signals, the Secret Doctrine's metaphysical teachings, when read 
properly aloud, can be both visualized and heard in the mind -- just as the ancient 
Kabbalah was transmitted from Master to Chela, or father to son, mouth to ear, 
along with visual diagrammatical symbols and glyphs (sometimes imbedded in 
their written/chanted languages). 

I hope this will end once and for all the misanthropic comments heard on this 
list that falsely labels those students who follow that advice, as well as 
ULT in general -- by pejoratively calling them "fundamentalists." However, it 
should be noted, that all those students who base their knowledge on the "Three 
Fundamental Principles of Theosophy," as partially described in the Proem of 
the Secret Doctrine, and test all teachings against those principles, should 
be proud to call themselves "Theosophical Fundamentalists." :-) 

Best wishes,

Leon 




In a message dated 05/10/05 10:42:50 AM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

>Should an "ideal", non-dogmatic, all-inclusive
>
>Theosophical Society study and "promote" all
>
>these books?
>
>
>
>Books by Blavatsky, Sinnett, Judge, Besant,
>
>Leadbeater, Tingley, G. de Purucker, Olcott,
>
>Bailey, La Due, Ballard, Roerich,
>
>Prophet, Chaney, Steiner, Hodson, King, Crosbie,
>
>Wadia, Scott, Heindel, Innocente, Shearer, and
>
>other "Theosophical" writers.
>
>
>
>As well as books by various yogis, lamas,
>
>metaphysicans, sufis, spirtualists, psychical reseachers,
>
>kabalists, etc. etc. etc. etc.
>
>
>
>I believe that almost all the above named individuals
>
>have claimed contact with the "Masters" and all
>
>their books could broadly be called "theosophical".
>
>
>
>Who is to say what and what is not Theosophy or
>
>Theosophical?
>
>
>
>And who is to say what or what is not to be studied
>
>and promoted in a Theosophical Society or group?
>
>
>
>The three major Theosophical organizations (TS Adyar,
>
>TS Pasadena and ULT) all feature, study and promote only
>
>certain authors.
>
>
>
>Therefore are these three groups being "dogmatic" or in fact
>
>promoting a "fundamentalistic" version of Theosophy by in
>
>fact "limiting" which authors are promoted/studied???
>
>
>
>Hopefully some food for thought...
>
>
>
>Daniel
>
>http://hpb.cc