Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00099)

Daniel, thank you for your answers and counter-questions.
I will answer them as follows:


------------------------------------------------------
Daniel asks:
But did Dr. Algeo actually write that there was no Theosophy
[whatsoever} before HPB???
-----------------------------------------------------

Frank:
His formulation "but Theosophy derives from H.P. Blavatsky alone" is not
clear.
This is what I objected in my quick response.
His formulation is misleading, giving the impression as if Theosophy was
invented by HPB.
Some "Theosophists" (at least in my country) believe that there was no
Theosophy and/or occult knowledge before HPB.
And it seems as Algeo supports thats. The more as Algeo more than once holds
strange views.
If it's not Algeo's view, the better, but the misleading formulation
remains.

-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel asks:
It is true that Master KH wrote to Sinnett:
Theosophy is no new candidate for the world's attention, but only the
restatement of principles which have been recognised from the very
infancy of mankind.

But at the same time notice what the Master also emphasized:

. . . Our [esoteric and theosophical] doctrine . . . is now being
partially taught to Europeans FOR THE FIRST TIME....

. . . We have broken THE SILENCE OF CENTURIES . . . .
caps added.

Compare these TWO statements by K.H. to what you Frank wrote
about: "Boehme, Paracelsus, Hegel, Fichte, Schelling etc".
-----------------------------------------------------

Frank:
I compare. I see no contradition between my statement and your quote of K.H.
Do you see any?
There are MANY WAYS for the spread of the secret wisdom.
That Boehme, Paracelsus etc. were overshadowed by higher beings and/or
taught (it is said that Paracelsus was taught by adepts durign his
Wanderjahre) is no contradiction to K.H.'s statement of quasi-public
instruction.
-----------------------------------------------------

Daniel asks:
Could it be Frank that you are mistaken on this point just as
apparently Mr. Judge was in 1884?

Mr. Judge wrote in a letter to the editor of THE THEOSOPHIST (Feb.
1884, p. 122):
[snip]

Frank:
I don't know whether your question is rhetoric.
I understand Judge well in the quote you have given.
So if Judge is mistaken, I'm mistaken, too.

I stay to the point that Theosophy was not new and that for the first time
candidates were taught in new teachings which were old teachings.
Frank