Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00194)

Dear Daniel

I think your point is very interesting. I'll offer my point of view 
on that. 
To begin with, I'd say the term theosophy has at least three 
applications:

1- theosophy as a state of consciousness (Divine Wisdom).
2- theosophy as the universal theosophy (which includes quite 
different systems taught by those who reached that state of Divine 
Wisdom, as the Neoplatonists, Boehme, Eckhart, Paracelsus, 
Swedenborg, etc.)
3- Theosophy, as the teachings given through the modern theosophical 
movement.

What sense of `theosophy' should an "ideal Theosophical Society" be 
interested in? I think HPB was clearly interested in all of them 
(I've written an article to The Theosophist about this, with several 
quotations by HPB. It'll be published on September). Therefore in 
that "ideal TS" its members should not define strictly what theosophy 
is and quarrel about different leaders and their teachings. I'm 
primarily interested in the first theosophy, the Theo Sophia of 
Divine Wisdom as a state of consciousness, not as a written teaching. 
And I think the `ideal Theosophical Society' should stress that in 
its members. The theosophical teachings are no ends in themselves. 
They are means to awaken the Divine Wisdom.

If we are sincere, we have to acknowledge that cannot perceive 
whether there are 7 globes in a Chain, or if there is an Anupapadaka 
plane beyond the Atmic, or anything of that kind. So, on what basis 
will we decide between the teachings of HPB, Besant, de Purucker, 
Bailey, etc? Although I enjoy studying the Mahatma Letters, I don't 
think those contain the true esoteric teaching. Those letters were 
written to a non-initiate, western, not acquainted with esoteric 
teachings, and not fitted to esoteric training. How can we think the 
teachings given there are the real teachings given only to the 
Initiates? There are many statements in those letters saying that 
many of those teachings were given in a misleading form, etc. 

I'm not saying the teachings are useless, I'm only saying we cannot 
rely in them as complete accurately and dogmatize on them, and that 
is the case of any other theosophical teaching. I don't think the 
teachings given are the same as those given to the Initiates. Our 
teachings are to prepare our perception, to grasp the general idea, 
but the correct details, numbers, etc., are concealed. To put an 
example, what's the difference for us if there are 7 or 10 races? Or 
even more, what's the difference for us if the spiritual principles 
are three, or four (as HPB taught later in her esoteric teachings). 
That might be important to a real occultist, but the important thing 
for us to grasp are the general principles. When we are Initiates, we 
will have the correct information, but our mind will be already 
trained in that kind of thinking and conception. Therefore, the 
important thing to me is not so much the information in itself but 
the development of our intuition when we are trying to perceive and 
live according to that cosmovision. The teachings, to me, are more an 
exercise than a doctrine, and a serious study is a means.
I've read some books by HPB, Besant, Leadbeater, de Purucker, Judge, 
and other authors. I've also tried to read some Bailey books but they 
were boring to me. I personally am interested mostly in HPB's and 
Krishnamurti's teachings, since I think they throw light on each 
other's teachings in many aspects (I wrote three articles in The 
Theosophist showing this, with several quotations from both authors: 
Dec. 2004, May 2006 and July 2006). 
I've then `chosen' some authors, because their form of presenting 
things are more in tune with me, but I don't declare that that is the 
real theosophy. I remain open and I've found interesting things in 
others authors as well (for example, some writings of Besant filled 
some gaps in HPB's teachings as no other author could, and some 
Leadbeater books answered to some little experiences I had as no 
other author could). My main parameter to define if some author is 
theosophical or not, is whether its teachings tend to weaken the kama-
manas (the `I') as a center of consciousness to develop buddhi-manas 
or not, because I think that is the sine qua non condition to reach 
the Divine Wisdom. If in that endeavor the teachings of Alice Bailey 
really help someone in the right direction, then they are valid 
theosophical teachings for that person.