Re: Theos-World Re: H.P.B. did NOT avoid discussing "Pseudo-Theosophy".
Jul 18, 2007 11:16 PM
by Frank Reitemeyer
I don't have any doubt there is much misrepresentation of Theosophy.
There are many authors I don't think at all they are teaching
theosophy. But the question is not a simple one.
HPB herself said theosophy was beyond the TS, and there were
theosophists teaching theosophy in different ways:
Of course, theosophy is beyond the TS, because much of what many
"theosophists" or members believe is not even human wisdom.
Teaching theosophy is different ways, is ok, but not teaching from
Purucker taught the same teachings as HPB, but was allowed to open the door
a little more, and you pounce at different, beacause you judge just from the
outer form, not from the content, as HPB and GdeP taught they want to be
judged for themselves by the Pharisees.
"There were theosophists and Theosophical Schools for the last 2,000
years, from Plato down to the mediæval Alchemists, who knew the value
of the term, it may be supposed." (CW vol. XIII, p. 169, `The
Original Programme Manuscript')
We cannot say the previous theosophists of different traditions
taught the same as HPB, can we?
As they were theosophists they knew and taught Theosophy, therefore they
must have tught the same dogmas of theosophy or fundamental ideas, otherwise
they would not be regarded by HPB as theosophists. Or do you think that HPB
named anyone with strange ideas a theosophist?
But she goes farer saying:
". . . 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 OPINONS
(Capps added)." (CW vol. II, p. 88, `What is Theosophy?')
Therefore, we cannot take HPB's teachings as a secure definition of
what theosophy is and what is a deviation.
Wrong. HPB makes a clear definition what theosophy is and was not.
Study Isis unveiled, Secret Doctrine and the Key.
Every great thinker (that is: Hegel, Paracelsus, Goethe, Plato etc.) is a
theosophist, because he has found a mor or less big part of the TRUTH or
What can be more clear?
And you can you twist her words so long as you read: Theosophy is every
In plain words she says: All who have reached nirvana and have catched a
spark of divine wisdom are the agents of this divine wisdom.
How can it be otherwise???
That Besant and Leadbeater have expressed their own independent opinions
makes them not automatically great thinker, nor makes it them Theosophists!
They are pseudo-theosophists, because they sold their own mayavic illusions
under the good name of Theosophy, instead as Bailey and Steiner did under
their own brand.
That is my point. They can express, what they want, but must not name it
Theosophy before the world, because it is not TRUE.
But to make things harder, she also said:
"According as people are prepared to receive it, so will new
Theosophical teachings be given. But no more will be given than the
world, on its present level of spirituality, can profit by. It
depends on the spread of Theosophy-the assimilation of what has been
already given-how much more will be revealed and how soon." (CW vol.
IX, p. 244, `Letter from H. P. Blavatsky to the Second American
Therefore, how do we know if the "new" teachings given by GdeP,
Besant, or Leadbeater, etc., are inventions or new real theosophy? We
don't have the tools to do it.
Theosophy rejects your opinion and says, that every man has the tools to do
It is the divine spark, the other shore we must reach as all other great
thinkers and theosophists before us have done it.
Besnt and Leadbeater did not go that way and therefore were not able to show
others the right way.
That's pseudo-theosophy: To left people in the dark.
I have seem long-term Adyarites weeping bitter after long decades of quest,
but with no real progress.
We can make use of our "intuition",
but then one who doesn't agree with me is also using it. I'm not
saying that we, personally, cannot decide. But if we are sincere (and
I'd say, intelligent enough) we have to recognize our intrinsic
limitation and accept that other people may also be right. I know
it's much easier to say: "let's work only with HPB's teachings".
Either we speak of spirituality in connection with theosophy or we speak of
Only an occultist can recognize another occultist. It's the same with every
There is also a letter by HPB (sadly I don't have a copy here, and I
don't remember to whom) where she says (in my words) "there is not a
theosophical school. The TS is meant to nurture different schools of
thought" Does anybody remember that letter?
She says rather that the TS is no hothouse to produce adepts.
Obviously Besant and Leadbeater have overlocked this as also the 1900
My conclusion is: we have to give freedom to the search of every
What you call freedom is slavery.
The only freedom is in the higher manas and recognition of pukka Theosophy.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application