Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00312)

Dear Carlos,

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline" wrote:

> Because theirs are the two main (and quite different) views of
> Theosophy nowadays; one false, one true.

I also think that there is wrong view of theosophy, but I don't 
associate it with particular authors. For example, Blavatsky regarded 
the teaching of Boehme theosophical while in his doctrine he deviates 
from Blavatsky much farther than Leadbeater or most other 20th century 
theosophists. She also permitted to study two versions of theosophy 
existing at her time: Sinnett's (and her own) eastern theosophy and 
Anna Kingsford's western and christian theosophy.

I think that the wrong view of theosophy is the dogmatic and sectarian 
one, regardless of the books which are taken as the authoritative, and 
the right view is the freethinking, open to data of both any new 
researches and of any old teachings. As one of the Founders wrote, 
"you are free workers in domains of truth".

> But at least Nicholas Roerich did not announce the second coming of 
Christ

>From my point of view he has done nothing wrong, moreover, he was a 
member which Theosophical Society can be proud of, but teachings of 
his wife, Helena (who is regarded the main authority), imply many 
additions and some messianic ideas, though some of them, as about 
personality of the coming messiah and future world catastrophe were 
not published widely.
They couldn't influence Theosophical society, though tried, and then 
worked independently. The Roerich societies are many and have many 
members in Russia. There are many splits and quarrels in this 
movement, it sometimes comes to the court processes. Many of these 
people are dogmatic and authoritarian, which traits are met among 
those who study AB/CWL/AAB works are comparatively rare.
I disagree with Roerichians not primarily as to teaching (after all, I 
cannot know which is true) but because they ascribe to Roerichs very 
high occult status and despise most of the other leaders of the 
theosophical movement.

> So that means you are an ULT associate? When did you send your 
Declaration?

It was around 10 years ago. I was then in contact with Dallas 
Tenbroek. He helped me much with translations of the Transactions and 
Stanzas.

> Finally, who are the real manipulators in your view?

I don't know the names, but one thing is sure there are people who 
efficiently block promulgation of any version of theosophy, that of 
Besant/Leadbeater included. These people take control over the offices 
(what Leadbeater and his immediate pupils never did) and make 
idealistic members believe that the leaders are too wise for us, 
mortals, could understand the reasons of their this or that decision. 
Their distinguishing mark is separatism, they don't encourage 
collaboration with the people who are in their view "too newagean", 
"too roerichian", etc.
Of course, those whom I have could see or knew of are just executives, 
not the main manipulators.

> One of the Masters used that same word for the entrance procedures,
> in a Letter, for instance.

I understand it pretty well. But Geographical or Philatelistic 
societies have no such ceremonies, as these societies are quite 
secular; now such ceremonies are abolished in TS too. TS poses itself 
as a secular, non-religious body and shouldn't have any entrance 
ceremonies, though ES, I think, can have some.