Theos-Talk Archives (April 2009 Message tt00037)

Dear Sampsa,

This is not so much directed to you as it is to all theosophists who find it difficult to understand the "orthodox Blavatskian".    I think Blavatsky herself gives us the key to understanding why some champion her work almost exclusively, and others look to other writers, usually excluding Blavatsky altogether.  She wrote to Judge at one point:

>If I thought /for one moment/ that Lucifer will "rub out" Path I would never consent to be the editor. But listen, then, my good old friend. Once that the Masters have proclaimed your Path the /best, /the most /theosophical /of all theosophical publications, surely it is not to allow it to be rubbed out. . . . One is the fighting, combative Manas; the other (Path)is pure Buddhi. . . . Lucifer will be Theosophy militant and Path the shining light, the Star of Peace. . . . No, sir, the Path is too well, too /theosophically /edited for me to interfere.<

We see here from Blavatsky that there was to be a two-pronged approach to presenting Theosophy.  Blavatsky and her combative style, Judge and his inspirational style.  When Adyar turned its back on Judge, it left a vacuum that was filled with the writings of Besant and Leadbeater.  The problem was that although Besant and Leadbeater, no doubt did there best, they were not of the same caliber as Judge.  Judge appealed to our highest Selves, and his writings were in harmony with the doctrine that Blavatsky argued for so ably in her work.  Besant and Leadbeater appealed at an emotional level and their works often contradicted not only the doctrines presented by Blavatsky, but they were also full of internal contradictions.

Blavatsky's style tends to appeal more to the masculine mind; Judge, Besant and Leadbeater to the more receptive feminine mind.   As many theosophists probably know, it is hard to get new theosophists excited about the writings of Blavatsky.  When introducing a student to a new literature, it is much easier and more effective to provide the student with inspirational literature as that gives the student the energy and enthusiasm to plow through the more doctrinal aspects of Blavatsky's writings.  As a Movement, we need both styles of writing.

The problem, and I have seen this with students brought up in the Besant-Leadbeater tradition who have gone on to translate the works of Blavatsky into a different language.  After taking the time to understand Blavatsky, they realize that, in a sense, they have been duped.  Besant and Leadbeater have nowhere the breadth and depth of writing that Blavatsky has.  They are entirely different doctrines.  It is like trying to live on a steady diet of McDonald's fast food, as opposed to home-cooked meals.  These students do become rather vocal champions of Blavatsky after this, how could they not?

Now, if these students had first been introduced to theosophy through the writings of Judge, this violent reaction would not have taken place.  There would have been an harmonious transition from one writer to the other and back again.   This is because both writers were Chelas and both writers received their understanding of the doctrine they were promoting from the Masters they were associated with.  Besant and Leadbeater, may have been exceptional people, but they accrued to themselves too much power, and that power could not help but warp them.  Perhaps they did better than most of us would have done, given similar circumstances, but in the end they took the Society off course.  They took it off course not because of what they wrote, they were free to understand and write theosophy as the best they could.  They took it off course by changing the constitutional rules of the Society, allowing power politics to enter into play.  More specifically, Besant did this, originally with the help of Olcott.

Remember, it was Blavatsky who founded the ES.  To prevent the ES from ever becoming a threat to the Theosophical Society, she had it constituted so the members did not need to know one another, and the oath they made was to their Higher Selves.   They were not a body that could be wielded against the Society because they were independent thinkers beholden only to their Inner Selves.  They were prevented from telling anyone, other members included, that they had received contact from any Master, this ensured that they could not use that fact to accrue power to themselves and pretend to have moral authority over others.   ES members had put themselves on a lonely path that had no impact politically on the Theosophical Society.  The ES was also entirely separate from the Theosophical Society.  This all changed under Besant, starting while Olcott was still alive.

The Adyar Society needs its spiritually inspirational writers.  What it has is something less, an emotional inspiration, that works quite well in the East, but ultimately fails in the West.  As the West moves further from its Blind Faith Religions, and deeper into materialism, simple emotional inspiration will not be enough to sustain the Society.  It is working in India for now, but will in time fail there as well, especially as India becomes more Westernized.  If you want to understand why this is the case, get a hold of some of Don Beck's books or lectures on "Spiral Dynamics".  The point is India is developing through a phase now that makes it open to the likes of Besant and Leadbeater.  Once they make their way through that phase, membership in the Society will begin to die off as it is here in the West.  I suspect that Radha understands this at some level, and it is the reason why India will refuse to reopen the Judge case -- it would mean the eroding of her power base, a power base that she needs if she is going to stand against the english-speaking ES leadership and english-speaking LCC leadership and their allies.  It is probably a coalition of this faction that is threatening the Adyar TS and bringing about the current instability.

In one sense you can't blame them, they probably see the writing on the wall if things stay the way they are.  On the other hand, you have to be careful that these factions are not going to make things worse -- which they almost certainly will given their current behavior.

This all dovetails back to the history and original program of the Society.  You may want to shove it under a rug and pretend it doesn't exist, but to do so is to knowingly or unknowingly put another dagger into the back of the Society.  It is bleeding out pretty quickly now, and if only the Blavatskians are upset about this, the more's the pity.

The Blavatskians are a rather abrasive bunch, no doubt, and you may wish they would go away.  However, when they do go away, and many are independent right now, you will be looking at the death of organized theosophy in the West, at least of an Adyar flavor.  The enemies of theosophy will have won.  If you are not going to use the writings of Judge to engage people and inspire them, then you are going to have to look to the ancients for someone who can fit the bill.  None of them will be as able as Judge since his writings directly complement Blavatsky's, but you will have to realize that you need something.

Finally, Blavatskians are frustrated with those people being brought into the Society on the basis of the writings of Leadbeater and Besant.  Many of these people will never get beyond Besant and Leadbeater, they will do nothing to reclaim the names of these writers, as they are mostly emotional feel good types, and therefore they lay theosophy open to its critics who will attack it through its most vulnerable representatives.  If theosophists want to include Leadbeater and Besant in the greater body of theosophical knowledge, then they have to do what the Blavatskians did, research and fight for the reputation of their favorite writers, and show how these writers complement the Ancient Wisdom Tradition.  The sad fact is not only won't they do this, but for the most part they can't.  They are for the most part not constitutionally able to do the work.  This means that the Blavatskians have to put up with all the sentimental nonsense that derives from this theosophical faction, a faction that is now in the majority and unlikely to change.  Many will join the ES or LCC and do their feel good work for theosophy according to whatever their leaders instruct.  Learning to think for themselves, which is the core of theosophy, will never become an issue.

The bottom line is your Society is dying because it is not connected to a Spiritual Centre, if it was, there would be nothing on Earth that could destroy it.  The fact that it is dying is all that you need, to understand that it is an emotionally fortified artifice slowly crumbling away.  Spirit is eternal, emotion transient.  May the Theosophical Society Rest in Peace.

Bruce









--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "sampsakuukasjarvi" <sampsakuukasjarvi@...> wrote:
>
> Morten, would you like it if some of your faults would be discussed endlessly for decades by many Theosophists around the world? I don't believe you would.
> 
> I think it is not at all a theosophical attitude to talk always about Leadbeater's faults. I and many others on this forum are tired to hear this, may I dare say preaching all the time. You Morten started to sing this same song even when Keith Fisher offers himself to talk about purely administrative matters of the TS Adyar.
> 
> CWL surely had his faults, but I am assured that he wanted to help the humanity. Many of his teachings are inspiring. I also recommend his books to newbies, of course mentioning in the same time that Madame Blavatsky is more profound.
> 
> You Morten are right that we should know the theosophical history and also the faults of theosophical teachers. I appreciate your investigating attitude and your knowledge, but I really think we should remember also the good deeds of these people.
> 
> I have read many of your previous posts here. You seem to have been Baileyan earlier. Now you are very Blavatskian, too orthodox, I think. We should remember that Theosophy is not a religion nor a cult. Geoffrey Farting used to say that "No, we should not go back to Blavatsky, but go forward with Blavatsky!"
>  
> One obvious reason why CWL is pulished by the TS Adyar is that he belonged to the TS Adyar. Very simple. There doesn't have to be a hidden agenda. I think Katinka answered to your questions pretty well.
>