Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00426)

May 16 2005

Dear Lenny:

Thank you for such a clear unequivocal statement.

Dallas

===================================================
 
-----Original Message-----
From: leonmaurer@aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 12:25 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:

Subject: Re: Should an "ideal" Theosophical Society study and 
"promote" all these books?


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., contain, 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 Pythagoras, 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, metaphysicians, Sufis,
spiritualists, psychical researchers, 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