Re: Theos-World John Algeo on Modern Theosophy
Jul 15, 2007 05:59 AM
by Pablo Sender
Let's go to the root of the thing. It is Ok to me if you support GdeP
teachings. That's your right. I cannot do it because when studying
obscure matters in the SD and going to his books for some light, I
never found an answer, only discrepancies (from my point of view).
Two small examples, besides that of the 12 globes:
1 - He says Kumaras, Manasaputras and Agnisvattas are the same
entities: before, during and after having passed through the human
stage. A nice idea, but it doesn't fit with HPB's in several ways.
One of them: if a Kumara is a spiritually passive entity before
passing through the human experience, Why is Sanat Kumara & Co. (very
evolved Beings) called that way, and not Sanat Agnisvatta, for
2 - GdeP says Talas are states on the descending (involutive) arc and
Lokas are states on the ascending (evolutive) arc. But then, in HPB's
teachings to the EST, she says each loka (or more accurately, the
four lower ones) has the seven talas in it, and one can go to one or
another in different moments, because Loka is a psychic state related
to the spiritual level of evolution of a person, and Tala is the
intellectual state at any given moment.
So you see, I don't consider GdeP teachings very useful, based
on "theosophical" reasons (so to say). But nevertheless, I don't deny
his teachings may be useful to other people, or my understanding may
reveal a different thing in the future, so I would not call it pseudo-
Theosophy nor even Neo-Theosophy. All those derogative terms are the
seed of dogmatism and sectarianism.
What would you want? A theosophical inquisition? Kill Leadbeaterians!
I think that's far below the level of an aspirant to become a true
theosophist, and even of a mere academic professor of philosophy.
That attitude damages the whole theosophical movement. I've heard
serious people disregarding Theosophy because of the internal
conflicts among theosophical organizations. Cannot we be mature
enough as to treat with respect every theosophical leader? We owe
respect to any person, spiritual tradition, etc. Why should we be so
emotional when coming to different theosophical leaders? I can only
see in that narrow-mindedness.
According to HPB, theosophy is a term much wider than its modern
interpretation. She spoke about J. Boehme as being a theosophist and,
let me tell you, his teachings are far more distant from Blavatsky's
than Leadbeater's teachings from her.
Are you aware of HPB's statements as the following?:
". . . 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
OPINIONS (Capps added)." CW vol. II, p. 88, `What is Theosophy?'
There are plenty of them in HPB's writings. But some people choose
not to notice them (In the September issue of The Theosophist there
will be an article of mine about "What is Theosophy" with several
quotations of HPB on this point)
Of course, we could do comparative studies between the teachings of
different theosophical leaders. Seriously, with respect, humility,
without saying "this is Theosophy, that is not".
Well, that's for the time being
All the best
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application