Theos-Talk Archives (August 2008 Message tt00205)

In regards to C.W. Leadbeater's and Annie Besant's Theosophical 
teachings, Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn in his book "Theosophy:  A Modern 
Revival of Ancient Wisdom" (published 1930) wrote the following 
relevant statement: 

"Certain schools of his critics assert flatly that he [C. W. 
Leadbeater] has only succeeded in vitiating her [H.P. Blavatsky's] 
original presentation [of Theosophy]. Two years ago [starting in the 
March 15, 1928 issue] The Canadian Theosophist, a magazine published 
under the editorship of Mr. Albert Smythe at Toronto, published a 
series of articles [excerpted from Margaret Thomas' Theosophy Versus 
Neo-Theosophy] in which parallel passages from the writings of Madame 
Blavatsky and the Mahatma Letters on one side, and from the books of 
Mrs. Besant, Mr. Leadbeater, Mr. C. Jinarajadasa, on the other, give 
specific evidence bearing on the claims of perversion of the original 
theories by those whom they call Neo-Theosophists. The articles 
indicate wide deviations, in some cases complete reversal, made by 
the later interpreters [Besant, Leadbeater, Jinarajadasa] from the 
fundamental statements of the Russian Messenger [Blavatsky] and her 
Overlords [the Mahatmas]." 

"The differences concern such matters as the personality of God, the 
historicity of Jesus, his identity as an individual or a principle, 
the desirability of churches, priestcraft and religious ceremonial, 
the genuineness of an apostolic succession, and a vicarious 
atonement, the authority of Sacraments, the nature and nomenclature 
of the seven planes of man's constitution, the planetary chains, the 
monad, the course of evolution, and many other important phases of 
Theosophic doctrine. This exhaustive research has made it apparent 
that the later exponents have allowed themselves to depart in many 
important points from the teachings of H.P.B." (pp. 330-331)

Dr. James A. Santucci, professor of religious studies at California 
State University, Fullerton and editor of Theosophical History 
<http://www.theohistory.org/>, confirms Kuhn's statements:

"The two [Leadbeater and Besant] were largely responsible for the 
introduction of new teachings that were often in total opposition to 
the Theosophy of Blavatsky and her Masters. These teachings were  
designated by their opponents as Neo-Theosophy . . . or less often 
Pseudo-Theosophy. The differences between Theosophy and Neo-Theosophy 
are too numerous to mention in the context of this paper. . . . An 
extensive overview [of the differences] is given in the unpublished 
booklet, Theosophy or Neo-Theosophy by Margaret Thomas. . . . The 
booklet was written around 1925."  Quoted from: 
http://www.theohistory.org/aquarian_foundation.pdf

Jerry Hejka-Ekins, a long-time student of Madame Blavatsky's 
teachings, has also commented:

"The earliest use of the term 'neo-theosophy' was used by F.T. Brooks 
around 1912 in a book called Neo Theosophy Exposed. . . . Around 
1924, Margaret Thomas published a book called Theosophy Versus Neo-
Theosophy: Part one compares Blavatsky's teachings to those of Besant 
and Leadbeater's by juxtaposing quotes from each party on various 
subjects, so that the thoughtful reader could easily discern the 
differences and contradictions. Part two published documents 
concerning the Leadbeater scandal, and part three publishes documents 
concerning the Judge case. . . . " Quoted from "Discussions on the 
Theosophical Philosophy"

For details of the differences, see:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/thomas/index.htm

Daniel
Blavatsky Study Center / Blavatsky Archives
http://blavatskyarchives.com