Re: Should an "ideal" Theosophical Society study & "promote" these books?
Jul 17, 2007 07:12 PM
by Pablo Sender
I think your point is very interesting. I'll offer my point of view
To begin with, I'd say the term theosophy has at least three
1- theosophy as a state of consciousness (Divine Wisdom).
2- theosophy as the universal theosophy (which includes quite
different systems taught by those who reached that state of Divine
Wisdom, as the Neoplatonists, Boehme, Eckhart, Paracelsus,
3- Theosophy, as the teachings given through the modern theosophical
What sense of `theosophy' should an "ideal Theosophical Society" be
interested in? I think HPB was clearly interested in all of them
(I've written an article to The Theosophist about this, with several
quotations by HPB. It'll be published on September). Therefore in
that "ideal TS" its members should not define strictly what theosophy
is and quarrel about different leaders and their teachings. I'm
primarily interested in the first theosophy, the Theo Sophia of
Divine Wisdom as a state of consciousness, not as a written teaching.
And I think the `ideal Theosophical Society' should stress that in
its members. The theosophical teachings are no ends in themselves.
They are means to awaken the Divine Wisdom.
If we are sincere, we have to acknowledge that cannot perceive
whether there are 7 globes in a Chain, or if there is an Anupapadaka
plane beyond the Atmic, or anything of that kind. So, on what basis
will we decide between the teachings of HPB, Besant, de Purucker,
Bailey, etc? Although I enjoy studying the Mahatma Letters, I don't
think those contain the true esoteric teaching. Those letters were
written to a non-initiate, western, not acquainted with esoteric
teachings, and not fitted to esoteric training. How can we think the
teachings given there are the real teachings given only to the
Initiates? There are many statements in those letters saying that
many of those teachings were given in a misleading form, etc.
I'm not saying the teachings are useless, I'm only saying we cannot
rely in them as complete accurately and dogmatize on them, and that
is the case of any other theosophical teaching. I don't think the
teachings given are the same as those given to the Initiates. Our
teachings are to prepare our perception, to grasp the general idea,
but the correct details, numbers, etc., are concealed. To put an
example, what's the difference for us if there are 7 or 10 races? Or
even more, what's the difference for us if the spiritual principles
are three, or four (as HPB taught later in her esoteric teachings).
That might be important to a real occultist, but the important thing
for us to grasp are the general principles. When we are Initiates, we
will have the correct information, but our mind will be already
trained in that kind of thinking and conception. Therefore, the
important thing to me is not so much the information in itself but
the development of our intuition when we are trying to perceive and
live according to that cosmovision. The teachings, to me, are more an
exercise than a doctrine, and a serious study is a means.
I've read some books by HPB, Besant, Leadbeater, de Purucker, Judge,
and other authors. I've also tried to read some Bailey books but they
were boring to me. I personally am interested mostly in HPB's and
Krishnamurti's teachings, since I think they throw light on each
other's teachings in many aspects (I wrote three articles in The
Theosophist showing this, with several quotations from both authors:
Dec. 2004, May 2006 and July 2006).
I've then `chosen' some authors, because their form of presenting
things are more in tune with me, but I don't declare that that is the
real theosophy. I remain open and I've found interesting things in
others authors as well (for example, some writings of Besant filled
some gaps in HPB's teachings as no other author could, and some
Leadbeater books answered to some little experiences I had as no
other author could). My main parameter to define if some author is
theosophical or not, is whether its teachings tend to weaken the kama-
manas (the `I') as a center of consciousness to develop buddhi-manas
or not, because I think that is the sine qua non condition to reach
the Divine Wisdom. If in that endeavor the teachings of Alice Bailey
really help someone in the right direction, then they are valid
theosophical teachings for that person.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application