[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Anand's "lineage claim"

May 11, 2009 04:01 PM
by danielhcaldwell

Anand,  you write:

Blavatsky wrote book The Key to Theosophy. In this book, questions are given which readers asked. While giving answers, Blavatsky wrote answers by THEOSOPHIST: Every answer is prefixed by THEOSOPHIST: That time except Blavatsky nobody was writing on Theosophy to any considerable extent. That means when she used word Theosophy, Blavatsky meant her own writing. She called herself as
THEOSOPHIST and for all practical purposes she used word Theosophy to refer to her own writing. Later Besant, Leadbeater, Jinarajadasa added to Theosophy. But Theosophy was still a distinct body of knowledge. When many years passed, too many people wrote too many books, each calling his writing as Theosophy. And also TS constitution forbade distinguishing what Theosophy is and what it is not. This caused confusion because any idea written by anybody could be called as Theosophy, as TS constitution does not have provisions to define what Theosophy is and what it is not. However, when Blavatsky, Besant and Leadbeater mentioned Theosophy, for all
practical purposes they meant writings of these three individuals and others whom they called disciples of Masters of Wisdom.

Well, Anand, this is YOUR version.

Notice what you claim;

"Later [after Blavatsky] Besant, Leadbeater, Jinarajadasa added to Theosophy." 

You are simply giving your own special version of what I call the "lineage" argument.

Other Theosophical students have their OWN versions.

Followers of another lineage would claim:

"Later [after Blavatsky] Judge, Tingley, Purucker added to Theosophy." 

And from their view, they would rewrite your version to read as follows:

"However, when Blavatsky, Judge, Tingley and Purucker mentioned Theosophy, for all practical purposes they meant writings of these individuals...."

and the ULT prefers another version and one can see that in the following statements.

In "Theosophy" magazine for November 1929, a ULT writer proclaims "the glorious example of Masters' Messengers to the world, the Transmitters of the Wisdom-Religion. Among These, and in our own time and country: H.P. Blavatsky, William Q. Judge, and Robert Crosbie. . . ."

Or from another issue of the same magazine, we read:

"H.P. Blavatsky, as all know, was the Mother and Creator of the Theosophical Movement of the nineteenth century. . . . [Concerning W Judge] H.P.B.'s statements [are clear] that he was the Preserver of Theosophy and the Heart and Soul of the Second Section. Upon her death Mr. Judge was compelled by the exigencies of the Movement to stand in her stead. . . ." 

"There is always one Witness on the scene. After the death of Mr. Judge, Robert Crosbie kept the link unbroken. . . .None at the time suspected, and none has to this day suspected, that the quiet, earnest, steadfast man whose heart and soul were assimilated to the nature of H.P.B. and W.Q.J. was to be in fact the agent for the regeneration of  the Theosophical Movement on the lines laid down from the beginning by the Masters. H.P.B. was the Creator, W.Q.J. was the Preserver, and Robert Crosbie was the Regenerator of pure Theosophy."  

For more on lineage claims, see:


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application