Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00121)

Hi all,

I've been following this conversation and I'm not to pleased seeing
another theosophist to theosophist head to head.

But the post below is actually more than just a head to head. I don't
agree with it - but there is a point here that I want to address.

Yes - philosophies are consistent. But theosophy isn't A philosophy, but
Divine Philosophy in general. As Truth in general isn't always
consistent, similarly Religion in general isn't consistent - and
theosophy doesn't have to be consistent. Sorry folks: life isn't
consistent either - or at least our understanding of life isn't. As long
as we aren't Mahatmas ourselves, we have to live with uncertainty. Not
because we have to live with black magicians screwing with our heads,
but because when we set up a system and refuse to look outside it, it's
a sure sign we've stopped learning. And that's straight from the Bowen
material on the study of the Secret Doctrine
<http://www.katinkahesselink.net/metaphys/th-bowen.htm> . It's also
consistent with the philosophy of science. Any specific system of truth
will be rough around the edges, because not every fact will fit into the
theory equally well. It's actually a sign that something is true that
it's not finished yet.

Now I'm as sorry that Leadbeater changed the terminology around as
anybody, but that does not change the fact that some of his teachings
can't be ignored by theosophists today. However we may feel about the
specifics of his books - are there any of you out there that don't
believe we have 'aura's'? or chakras? We owe Leadbeater some respect for
bringing out those occult facts to the public, and creating a
terminology for them.

Katinka Hesselink

http://www.allconsidering.com/ <http://www.allconsidering.com/>
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/ <http://www.katinkahesselink.net/>
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> Theosophy is a philosophy not a religion and as a philosophy it must
be coherent and without ambiguity.  Leadbeater brought ambiguity
into theosophy by preaching opposing dogma to what was stated by the
originators.  Dugpas are Masters of Uncertainty!
>
> Cass
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Martin Mvandertak@...
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 September, 2008 8:40:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Daniel, why don't you warn readers about
Blavatsky's mistakes ?
>
>
> Aren't we all believing in lies and half Truths?
> Theosophy is wisdom of the gods it is said; if we want to believe in
the Truth we need to go for Ethymo-sophia or the wisdom of the Real or
reality and not some poxy stuff about gods, philosophers and scientists.
Reality is now and not in the past nor the future; we can use the now
springboarding into eternity.
> If there was so much truth in theosophy, why are people still
discussing it instead of launching new ideas coming from the same source
and developing f.i. anthroposophy and alike science...
>
> --- On Tue, 9/23/08, Cass Silva silva_cass@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> From: Cass Silva silva_cass@yahoo. com>
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Daniel, why don't you warn readers about
Blavatsky's mistakes ?
> To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
> Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 2:23 AM
>
> Daniel
> Anand will never admit that Leadbeater got it wrong because he would
then have to admit that he (Anand) has spent 40 years in believing in
lies.
>
> Cass
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Anand <AnandGholap@ gmail.com>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
> Sent: Monday, 22 September, 2008 7:05:53 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Daniel, why don't you warn readers about
Blavatsky's mistakes ?
>
> Subject of Theosophy, as understood by world and students of
> Theosophy, is complex. When I read messages of students of Blavatsky
> and messages of students of CWL, I find that what they understand
> Theosophy and it's main concepts is very different. That means
> Theosophical understanding of students of Blavatsky is different from
> understanding of students of Leadbeater. Differences are big and on
> important topics. It is possible that HPB and CWL had same meaning in
> mind but expressed that in different words. But their impact is
> certainly different on people. If somebody is referring Theosophy, I
> might ask "are you talking about Theosophy of Blavatsky or are you
> talking about Theosophy of Besant-Leadbeater ?"
> Similarly reactions of westerners and Christians to Theosophy depend
> on what they consider as Theosophy. When they consider Blavatsky's
> writing as Theosophy, they ridicule, hate Theosophy. Such hatred is
> not expressed by those Christians who consider CWL's writing as
Theosophy.
> I have come to a point where it is necessary to make clear distinction
> between Theosophy of Leadbeater-Besant and Theosophy of Blavatsky. As
> these two are different and have different effects on people, I feel
> that such distinction is very necessary. It is because we often come
> in contact with students of Blavatsky not agreeing with students of
> Leadbeater and CWL-students ignoring Blavatsky's writing.
> I am also feeling a need of writing article making it clear which
> Theosophy I support and which Theosophy I reject. I agreed with CWL,
> but I did not agree with Krishnamurti. I felt Krishnamurti' s teaching
> would do damage to humanity. So I rejected openly K's teaching, just
> as Catholic church openly rejects abortion and gay marriage.
> I feel that I should now write article on which Theosophical ideas I
> support and which Theosophical ideas I reject.
> Best
> Anand Gholap
>
> Make the switch to the world&#39;s best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail!
http://au.yahoo. com/y7mail
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>       Make the switch to the world&#39;s best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail!
http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]