Theos-Talk Archives (January 2009 Message tt00004)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph P. Fulton" wrote:

> I have to admit that sometimes I am quite amazed at the lack of
> comparative studies.

In "The Theosophist" of June & July of 2003 there was an article by E.
Bilimoria, former president of the English section.
Yet it was rather integrative and syntesyzing than comparative.

I don't know which was the reaction on it in the western sections, but
here in Russia after it appeared in translation it arose in most
readers a reaction: in some enthusiastic and in some negative, but it
seems that none of them was left indifferent.
The author considers not only TS Adyar authors but also ex-adyar like
Bailey and Steiner and non-adyar as Brunton.

The main idea of all this, as I see it, that there is theosophy as a
divine wisdom, which is the full truth, and there is theosophical
teaching; or, rather, many theosophical teachings, as to of Blavatsky,
Steiner, Leadbeater, Kingsford, etc. They are not necessarily
convertible into one another and find their common ground only in the
absolute theosophy. It would be error to regard one the simplified
exposition of another; though if we really need the simpler exposition
of truth, we cannot obtain it by simplification of the more
complicated exposition, as of HPB; instead we have to prepare this
simpler teaching by ascending to the theosophy itself and then make
the simple exposition of it. Otherwise we'll get the dead-letter
scholarship.