Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00355)

Dear students in common,

In our search for understanding of ourselves and the Kosmos, we
usually begin by asking questions from our particular
predispositions, often driven unconsciously at first by our skandhas.
Some of us will be satisfied solely with scientific rationale, others
with religion, still others with any one of the innumerable "new, new
age" options, be they healing, psychic development, astrology, astral
projection etc. The remainder who are unsatisfied or unfulfilled by
the aforementioned can often gravitate towards one or other form of
theosophy.
And here the questioning perhaps needs to become a little more
focused, because not all theosophy is the same. Certainly, the three
fundamental propositions are inviolate in most versions, but from
this departure point theosophy has been presented in a number of
different forms, some being significantly at variance and even
contradictory to the "original" Theosophy of the Mahatmas and Madame 
H.P. Blavatsky. 
Many new students do not realise this and grasp onto the first 
version they come across, sometimes becoming strong defenders
of "their" particular tradition.
Other students, for one reason or another, continue to question their
introductory version. For them, merely accepting what their leaders,
teachers and writers have espoused is insufficient. There can be an
inner need to further investigate the authenticity of the information
and its veracity.
This is where matters become more significant as those students may
begin to discover that the "original" Theosophy of Madame Blavatsky
and her teachers is not only about releasing a new body of
information to be learned, remembered and regurgitated at will. The
method in which their version was released in written form was also
intended to bring about a new way of thinking, where the religious
method of blind following was to be replaced by a spirit of free,
individual, ongoing inquiry. 
Neither Madame Blavatsky nor her teachers proclaimed perfect 
knowledge. Furthermore, they stated that only a corner of the veil of 
Truth was being lifted. So this ever open mindset, based in an honest 
and humble approach, seems to be what they were encouraging. For 
them, humanity had been deluded for too long into blindly 
believing "authority" figures.
As students inquire further, they may discover that humility and
honesty was not always the approach or method of certain theosophical 
leaders and writers who succeeded Blavatsky. As mentioned, students 
may also begin to discover variances and contradictions from 
the "original" writings. In discovering this, the issues of 
credibility and authenticity of both theosophical information and its 
proponents can become paramount.
To mount an effective investigation into credibility and
authenticity, the study of theosophical history, in terms of its
teachings and personages, is perhaps indispensable.
And herein lies the root of our debates between the proponents of the
various Theosophical organisations throughout the world, and here on
theostalk. If we have differing versions of theosophy, which has the
greater credibility? If we have leaders, writers and teachers who
have been honest and truthful, and those who clearly have not, in
whom do we place our trust? Where we have one version which empowers 
us and another which would have us become subservient to "authority", 
which would we prefer to study further?
Until we become Adepts with profound insight and wisdom, these
questions seem to be of vital significance if we are to accept
Madame Blavatsky's challenge to truly and without prejudice think for
ourselves. Perhaps then we may begin the genuine journey towards 
Knowledge and Truth.

Very best wishes
Nigel Carey
Theosophical Academy
Australia