Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00141)

Hi Frank

Let's go to the root of the thing. It is Ok to me if you support GdeP 
teachings. That's your right. I cannot do it because when studying 
obscure matters in the SD and going to his books for some light, I 
never found an answer, only discrepancies (from my point of view). 
Two small examples, besides that of the 12 globes:
1 - He says Kumaras, Manasaputras and Agnisvattas are the same 
entities: before, during and after having passed through the human 
stage. A nice idea, but it doesn't fit with HPB's in several ways. 
One of them: if a Kumara is a spiritually passive entity before 
passing through the human experience, Why is Sanat Kumara & Co. (very 
evolved Beings) called that way, and not Sanat Agnisvatta, for 
example?
2 - GdeP says Talas are states on the descending (involutive) arc and 
Lokas are states on the ascending (evolutive) arc. But then, in HPB's 
teachings to the EST, she says each loka (or more accurately, the 
four lower ones) has the seven talas in it, and one can go to one or 
another in different moments, because Loka is a psychic state related 
to the spiritual level of evolution of a person, and Tala is the 
intellectual state at any given moment.

So you see, I don't consider GdeP teachings very useful, based 
on "theosophical" reasons (so to say). But nevertheless, I don't deny 
his teachings may be useful to other people, or my understanding may 
reveal a different thing in the future, so I would not call it pseudo-
Theosophy nor even Neo-Theosophy. All those derogative terms are the 
seed of dogmatism and sectarianism.
What would you want? A theosophical inquisition? Kill Leadbeaterians! 
I think that's far below the level of an aspirant to become a true 
theosophist, and even of a mere academic professor of philosophy. 
That attitude damages the whole theosophical movement. I've heard 
serious people disregarding Theosophy because of the internal 
conflicts among theosophical organizations. Cannot we be mature 
enough as to treat with respect every theosophical leader? We owe 
respect to any person, spiritual tradition, etc. Why should we be so 
emotional when coming to different theosophical leaders? I can only 
see in that narrow-mindedness.
According to HPB, theosophy is a term much wider than its modern 
interpretation. She spoke about J. Boehme as being a theosophist and, 
let me tell you, his teachings are far more distant from Blavatsky's 
than Leadbeater's teachings from her.
Are you aware of HPB's statements as the following?:

". . . Every great thinker and philosopher, especially every founder 
of a new religion, school of philosophy, or sect, is necessarily a 
Theosophist. Hence, Theosophy and Theosophists have existed ever 
since the first glimmering of nascent thought made man seek 
instinctively for the means of expressing HIS OWN INDEPENDENT 
OPINIONS (Capps added)." CW vol. II, p. 88, `What is Theosophy?'

There are plenty of them in HPB's writings. But some people choose 
not to notice them (In the September issue of The Theosophist there 
will be an article of mine about "What is Theosophy" with several 
quotations of HPB on this point)
Of course, we could do comparative studies between the teachings of 
different theosophical leaders. Seriously, with respect, humility, 
without saying "this is Theosophy, that is not".

Well, that's for the time being

All the best

p