Theos-Talk Archives (October 2005 Message tt00124)

Perry wrote:

With all the discussion recently on `neo 
theosophy' vs `original theosophy' one 
important
point I think we need to remember is that 
while there are teachings that are contrary 
to a
greater or lesser degrees in the writings of 
Annie Besant and C.W Leadbeater with those of
HPB and the Mahatmas that does not therefore 
mean that they did not write some very
good theosophical material.

Frank answers:
Perry, no one ever said that ALL what AB and 
CWL wrote is wrong.
The main argument is that the lack of 
spirituality (or living theosophy as opposed 
to dead-letter theosophy) and implicated the 
lack of a moral code, both in both person 
character, their claims of being in contact 
with Masters (even higher Masters as were 
HPB's teachers), their cant (or Orwell 
newspeak) language and their fighting against 
the pukka doctrines, in the main up to 1929, 
and subliminal until today.

So, when - to say a number - 50 percent of 
their information is true and the other 50 
per cent or untrue:

How difficult will it for a student of 
Theosophy, to decide, what of it is true and 
what not?
How long will it take, when he/she/it 
studies, say, five hours a day? One decade, 
two or three?

This is the main reason, why no responsible 
and compassionate fellow theosophist will 
recommend the writings of AB & CWL to a new 
student or beginner, because for newbies (and 
you can be a newbie even after twenty years 
of study!) it is dangerous, as they have not 
yet developed enough discrimination power.
Newbies should begin with HPB, Judge, Tingley 
and especially de Purucker with his unique 
didactic method.

OTOH, if you have a theosophy student, who is 
experienced enough over many decades, if not 
lifes - then he can study AB & CWL without 
fear of stumbling.

When I had my own experimental study group, I 
had to work with the people who where there, 
and some came from Adyar, although they were 
renegades since a longer time (but 
unconcscious to themselves they as Adyar 
renegates if not foes still filtered 
Theosophy through their Adyar-conditioned 
mind.
After I had lectured in some meetings about 
pukka Theosophy, some of the old students 
were stricken and shocked. I will never 
forget the reaction of an old student in his 
seventies, who had tears in his eyes and was 
shouting: "Why the hell no one informed us 
before? How many decades I have wasted with 
Besant and Leadbeater! Now in my seventies I 
begin to study Purucker and I know he is 
right. That is the true Theosophy! How 
terrible are the people of Adyar that they 
have stolen my life time!"

The big plus for a student of the original 
and unaltered teachings as delivered by 
Blavatsky, Judge, Tingley, Purucker and their 
chelas is, that they never have to go back 
and continue from another cross-road or 
un-learn wrong things. They are on the safe 
side with their teachers.

Everyone in the broad Theosophical Movement 
is free to study and accept as teacher what 
he likes. But a student who follows the 
Bodhisattva path of love and compassion warns 
his fellow-student not to go the wrong path, 
although he has his free will to do so.

Everyone is free to make of his life-time, 
what he will. I for one have no time to 
waste, neither in my personal life, nor in 
the universal life.
I need not to study wrong teachings, to 
un-learn them to come to the real teachings. 
I need no hunts for the astral world, 
emotional psychic language, visions, secret 
initiations, astral flights to the Wesak 
valley, research of my former lifes as 
prince, guru, king and millionaire. I begin 
with the real teachings and feel well with 
it!

Frank