Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00213)

I don't have any doubt there is much misrepresentation of Theosophy. 
There are many authors I don't think at all they are teaching 
theosophy. But the question is not a simple one. 
HPB herself said theosophy was beyond the TS, and there were 
theosophists teaching theosophy in different ways:

"There were theosophists and Theosophical Schools for the last 2,000 
years, from Plato down to the mediæval Alchemists, who knew the value 
of the term, it may be supposed." (CW vol. XIII, p. 169, `The 
Original Programme Manuscript')

We cannot say the previous theosophists of different traditions 
taught the same as HPB, can we? But she goes farer saying: 

". . . 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 OPINONS 
(Capps added)." (CW vol. II, p. 88, `What is Theosophy?')

Therefore, we cannot take HPB's teachings as a secure definition of 
what theosophy is and what is a deviation. But to make things harder, 
she also said:

 "According as people are prepared to receive it, so will new 
Theosophical teachings be given. But no more will be given than the 
world, on its present level of spirituality, can profit by. It 
depends on the spread of Theosophy-the assimilation of what has been 
already given-how much more will be revealed and how soon." (CW vol. 
IX, p. 244, `Letter from H. P. Blavatsky to the Second American 
Convention'.)

Therefore, how do we know if the "new" teachings given by GdeP, 
Besant, or Leadbeater, etc., are inventions or new real theosophy? We 
don't have the tools to do it. We can make use of our "intuition", 
but then one who doesn't agree with me is also using it. I'm not 
saying that we, personally, cannot decide. But if we are sincere (and 
I'd say, intelligent enough) we have to recognize our intrinsic 
limitation and accept that other people may also be right. I know 
it's much easier to say: "let's work only with HPB's teachings". But 
then there is another danger. In HPB's words:

"Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has hitherto ended in 
failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect, 
set up hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible 
degrees that vitality which living truth alone can impart. You must 
remember that all our members have been bred and born in some creed 
or religion, that all are more or less of their generation both 
physically and mentally, and consequently that their judgment is but 
too likely to be warped and unconsciously biassed by some or all of 
these influences. If, then, they cannot be freed from such inherent 
bias, or at least taught to recognise it instantly and so avoid being 
led away by it, the result can only be that the Society will drift 
off on to some sandbank of thought or another, and there remain a 
stranded carcass to moulder and die." (KT, Conclusion)

There is also a letter by HPB (sadly I don't have a copy here, and I 
don't remember to whom) where she says (in my words) "there is not a 
theosophical school. The TS is meant to nurture different schools of 
thought" Does anybody remember that letter?

My conclusion is: we have to give freedom to the search of every 
member, at the same time we should promote a respectful comparative 
study between different authors, movements, traditions, etc, and we 
should stress the necessity of living according to the theosophical 
principles, so the serious members will develop enough intuition as 
to discover and preserve the right teachings, without imposing to 
others their views, preventing them thus from setting up hard-and-
fast dogmas. I've confidence that with that attitude, the Masters may 
send "collective thoughts" that will be perceived by sincere members 
(see letter to A. Besant, 1900) and will secure a fairly right 
direction.
That is, so far, what I think having given a lot of thought to this 
matter.


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> H.P.Blavatsky did NOT avoid
> discussing "Pseudo-Theosophy."
> 
> Notice what HPB wrote:
> 
> "?If the 'false prophets of Theosophy' are to be left untouched, the
> true prophets will be very soon--as they have already been--confused
> with the false. It is nigh time to winnow our corn and cast away the
> chaff."
> 
> "? We do not believe in allowing the presence of sham elements in
> Theosophy, because of the fear, forsooth, that if even 'a false
> element in the faith' is ridiculed, the latter 'is apt to shake the
> confidence' in the whole?."
> 
> STRONG WORDS, no doubt, from H.P. Blavatsky.
> 
> And elsewhere HPB wrote:
> 
> "...The great evil of the whole thing is, not that the truths of
> Theosophy are adopted by these blind teachers, for we should gladly
> welcome any spread, by whatever means, of ideals so powerful to wean
> the world from its dire materialism - but that they are so 
interwoven
> with mis-statements and absurdities that the wheat cannot be 
winnowed
> from the chaff, and ridicule, if not worse, is brought to bear
> upon. . . [the Theosophical] movement. . . ."
> 
> Or take these words of H.P.B:
> 
> "Great are the desecrations to which the names of two of the Masters
> have been subjected. There is hardly a medium who has not claimed to
> have seen them. Every bogus swindling Society, for commercial
> purposes, now claims to be guided and directed by 'Masters' often
> supposed to be far higher than ours!...." The Key to Theosophy,
> original edition, p. 301.
> 
> "The publication of many of the facts herein stated has been 
rendered
> necessary by the wild and fanciful speculation in which many
> Theosophists and students of mysticism have indulged...." The Secret
> Doctrine, original edition, Vol. I, p. viii.
> 
> "... A new and rapidly growing danger...is threatening...the spread
> of the pure Esoteric Philosophy and knowledge....I allude to those
> charlatanesque imitations of Occultism and Theosophy....By pandering
> to the prejudices of people, and especially by adopting the false
> ideas of a personal God and a personal, carnalized Saviour, as the
> groundwork of their teaching, the leaders of this 'swindle' (for 
such
> it is) are endeavoring to draw men to them and in particular to turn
> Theosophists from the true path." E.S. Instruction No. I., 1890
> edition, p. 2.
> 
> Now if all of this was happening during the years when HPB wrote the
> above statements, one should not be surprised if such claims, etc.
> CONTINUED to happen after she died when she would not be available 
to
> warn students.
> 
> In fact, from a study of the decades following HPB's death, one can
> see that such claims, etc. grew and grew and GREW....
> 
> Also consider the warnings given by H.P.B.'s Teachers. See a
> selection of some of these at:
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/psychicversusinitiate.htm
> 
> And more material from H.P.B's pen on the above subject matter can 
be
> found at:
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/onpseudotheosophy.htm
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/latermessengers.htm
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosophicaltraditions.htm
> 
> If one believes in the bonafides of HPB and her Masters and of their
> teachings, etc.,, then I would suggest that their words on this
> particular topic are worthy of careful consideration and serious
> discussion.
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>