RE: [bn-study] RE: The Resurgence of Pseudo-Theosophy
Oct 15, 2005 03:48 AM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck
Please see notes below
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: The Resurgence of Pseudo-Theosophy
DT>Is "pseudo-THEOSOPHY" the result of deep study, or, of what ? >
ZD It is a personal view that theosophy is an understandng and way
of life. Pseudo-theosophy is a term in which individuals may
interpret differently. Since all are learning about life, and
understandings are inevitable in life, than theosophy is applied by
all beings, whether conscious of it or not. I do not divide or
separate in a manner of theosophy and pseudo theosophy.
DT>I am indeed puzzled by this -- how can it be answered, unless one knows
ORIGINAL THEOSOPHY ?>
ZD Original theosophy can be said to date back millions of years. Long
one presentation of theosophy in recent years. Many individuals presented
theosophy (divine wisdom) over many time periods. There exists a
difference between original material presented by an individual (s) of
theosophical matters and original theosophy itself. Original theosophy
is still in the process of being reveal and discovered. It has not ended.
To state it a little differently, original divine wisdom is still in the
process of being revealed and discovered.
DTB By ORIGINAL THEOSOPHY I mean the unedited writings of HPB and W Q J
In other words I refer to the present era THEOSOPHY as they offered it.
I fully understand that THEOSOPHY is antique and is to that extent a
statement of Laws and of History.
DT>You ask: "My inquiry of curiosity was in regards to your perspective of
the average theosophist and it's lodges." May I offer a different view? >
ZD Yes, most definitely.
DT>I would prefer to say: We (as students of
THEOSOPHY) would generally reserve the use of the word "theosophist" to the
Masters of Wisdom - Those truly wise men who know and practice it exactly.
The rest of us, no matter how erudite they may seem, are all "students." >
The line of thought is understood.
DT>THEOSOPHY is neither a cult, nor a sect, nor a "religion." It invites no
"authority" and certainly no "faithful" or 'blind believers.">
It is not quite understood as to what is meant by authority. Is it in
regard to an individual (s)? Is it in regard to a book (s)? Is it in
regard to else?
Divine wisdom would seem to be divine wisdom
and it is not seen where any individual or wriitten word or else
holds claim and authority over it. It is as it is. It would also seem
'that there are many avenues to divine wisdom.
DTB By "authority" I mean the claims made by some to be able to fully
and truthfully interpret THEOSOPHY . I agree that THEOSOPHY always stands
on its own logic and facts.
DT>In my opinion, the "opinions" of others do not count. I mean, of those
who say they know, or have met some older students, and know something of
their attitudes. >
ZD It appears to be self evident that all beings have some divine
within them and all beings can share. Personal discernment may
reveal what divine wisdom another may present. A simple thought
expressed by a child may present divine wisdom. To discern divine
wisdom from all beings and the life around each is a great insight
to be open to. If opinions and views were not shared, and heard,
would not a source of expression of divine wisdom be lost?
This is not to state that divine wisdom rests on the authority of
any individual or book or else. But that all have some to share and
personal discernment can recognize divine wisdom when it
DT>I, for instance, do not think I need interpretation.>
Almost countless are those who do and have thought in the same
manner. Whether one does or does not is seen as a personal
discernment unto one's self. The prior statement is but an observance.
DT>I think I can fairly say: The real "student of THEOSOPHY is an individual
engaged in trying to make sure that the doctrines and principles of
THEOSOPHY are accurate and reasonable. He is a kind of 'perpetual motion'
enquirer. He gathers for use those ideas and principles that are impersonal
and universal in scope. He is continually looking for ideas that may
support the IDEALS : [see S D I 14 -19]>
The last sentence is seen as an important avenue to divine wisdom.
DT>If one follows such a "path," then one is seeking "authority, and
opinion" within the evidence that is available for all, or anyone, to
ZD The seeking of authority is not seen as the same as seeking
divine wisdom. The recognition of divine wisdom comes from
within, not without.
DT>I just read an excerpt from Einstein in which he advises anyone who
consults to limit themselves to what THEY HAVE READ (and thought about,
using common sense) and not base themselves on others' opinions.>
ZD One gathers ideas and such from reading or another's verbally
expressed view. These are not what one bases themselves on, but
on what has been personally discerned from it. It may be stated
that the only authority of one's self is one's self.
DT>Do you desire to pose as an "authority?" >
ZD I am not an authority nor have the desire to be such. This has been
expressed on previous occasions. One fellow being sharing with
another is not a position of authority but of brotherhood. For one
to say "I am right, you are wrong" or "You must follow what I
say" is posing as an authority. It is seen that no individual is an
authority over another. Each is an authority unto oneself. All beings
have the free choice and free will in which to exercise. To
judge another is to place oneself in the position of an authority.
DT>Or do you desire to offer your thoughts to others for their
ZD The desire is that the sharing is a two way communing, not a
one directional occurence. The sharing of an experience is a
one directional presentation, but the thoughts on it is a two
directional discussion, or more so if others wish to participate.
DT>Are those thoughts the result of your own deep and full study of
THEOSOPHY, or not?>
ZD It is the "result" of brotherhood and compassion. The "full study"
divine wisdom (theosophy) is still an ongoing event. I can not claim
completion of such.
DT>Most Lodges do not open their-platforms for debates. They are concerned
with promulgating the principles of THEOSOPHY and discussing their
ZD Discussion is seen as different than debate. If a discussion turns
a debate, then I prefer to discontinue the communing.
DT>Are your thoughts opposed?>
?? Opposed to what? The sharing of thoughts and experiences is
not personally considered as being opposed to anything. If some
thoughts appear to be conflictive, then a form of paradox may be
present. Open communing may often disipate a seeming paradox.
DT >If so, why ?>
I have yet to encounter other than seeming paradoxes or seeming
opposing thought lines.
DT>Can you resolve that point? >
Resolution in the senerio stated is not done by one party, but from
both. It comes from a mutual understanding. Can I resolve a point?
No. It takes two. Would I be able to present a resolution?
Possibly. It may be the other party that does so. It is the openess
and thought of both parties that generally finds a resolution.
DTB AGREED FULLY, THANKS
DT>Can you offer a specific area of inquiry, and compare your discoveries or
opinions with comparative relevant statements made in Theosophical
ZD Can this not be done in all literature, whether considered to be of
divine wisdom or other? Are not all things interconnected?
DT>In some ways I detect a desire to debate - contention? -- which is not
part of a regular Theosophical presentation. >
ZD If a desire to debate, or contention, is taken from the manner
in which I express, then it may be that it is taken in the manner in which
was not intended or it was expressed incorrectly. Both are feasible.
Perhaps you could present where you detect this desire you speak of and why
it is taken in the manner it is. This may assist in bringing clarity to the
Thank you for your responses. My question of curiousity is believed to be
DTB yes, and many thanks indeed
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application