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

re: "What's missing from our Talk"

Aug 23, 1994 11:56 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins

Monday, Eldon wrote to Paul:

ET>  What I miss, or feel is under represented in our
> discussion group, is clear, lucid essays on the theosophical
> philosophy. I miss writings that clearly state the concepts of
> Theosophy in its own terms, writings that come from a belief
> that Theosophy is literally, actually, really true.

      One would think that discussions on the Theosophical
philosophy would be the prime topic on a theosophical net.  Yet,
I must agree with Eldon, I have also seen very little of this.
Yes, I see lots of little essays of digested ideas of Jung,
Gurdjieff, Rudhyar, etc., more often than not, with no particular
reference to the core theosophical teachings (whether they be
theosophical or neo-theosophical).  These essays, are very nice
also, and I am not putting them down.  They also have a place
here.  But, they are not the same as solid discussions of core
Theosophical teachings.
      But I wonder how much real interest there is in Theosophical
teachings among the users of this net.  Eldon is the only one who
has consistently written essays on this subject, and they are
usually met with criticism--not criticism of his grasp of the
teachings (which is a very good one), but criticism of the fact
that he has beliefs concerning this subject in the first place.
      It is not only Eldon's expositions that are ignored or
criticized for being written, but other's also, including several
of my own on this subject.
      I wonder, if the reluctance to discuss theosophical
teachings is because most people in the Theosophical Society are
not really that well read in the theosophical writings, and
really have deeper interests elsewhere.
      If there is a genuine interest in Theosophical teachings,
then why don't we have more posts concerning them?  Those
familiar with the literature can be resources to direct others
who are less familiar to sources where they can find more
      I would think that posts directly concerning theosophical
teachings would be of prime interest to students of theosophy.
Even my suggestion (spurred by Vic's invitation to discuss
aspects of theosophical education)  that we discuss ethics in
terms of theosophical education was met with accusations that I
was suggesting that younger theosophists are immoral.  Something
very strange is going on here.

ET> I sense doubt in Theosophy, distrust of it, a cynical
> attitude that it's a sham, that it's a work of imagination,
> that it's just a fairy tale.

      I also sense this same doubt.  What is even more disturbing,
is that when it is directly expressed, it is usually done by
those who have demonstrated very little in depth knowledge of
what those teaching are that they doubt.

ET>  My concern, and this is for Theosophy in western society,
> is that it is well on the way to becoming an exoteric
> philosophy, an empty wine bottle that has lost its valuable
> contents. There is something very real, and it is behind the
> words that we read. It is a legitimate gateway to the
> Mysteries of old. And soon, perhaps in a few decades, it may
> be lost to the world. When that happens, the value to the
> words will have changed. The thought-current behind them will
> no longer run as strong. The power of the words as an
> invocation to our Higher Natures will have faded.

      If there is anything to theosophical prophesies, we have
until the end of the century to get our act together in this
world, or reap a lot of stored up karma.  Considering the state
of the Theosophical Movement, if we pull through, it won't be
because of the Theosophical Organizations.

ET>  Some early theosophical writers had a strong preference
> for Christianity, and slanted the Teachings in that direction.
> This went so far that some became Priests or Bishops and they
> became heavily involved in church activities.  Some critics
> called their writings Neo-Theosophy, because there was such a
> slant put on the Teachings.

      Just a historical word of clarification here: The earliest
use of the term "neo-theosophy" was used by F.T. Brooks around
1912 in a book called ~Neo Theosophy Exposed,~  which was part
two of his first book: ~The Theosophical Society and its Esoteric
Bogeydom."  Brooks was an early theosophist and J. Nehru's
teacher.  Brook's criticisms revolved around the handling of the
Leadbeater scandal, Krishnamurti's promotion to being the vehicle
for the Matreya, and radical new teachings in the E.S., channeled
through C.W. Leadbeater, that contradicted the old ones.
      Around 1924, Margaret Thomas published a book called
parts:  Part one compares Blavatsky's teachings to those of
Besant and Leadbeater's by directly quoting each on various
subjects and putting them in parallel columns, so that the
thoughtful reader could easily discern the differences and
contradictions.  Part two publishes documents concerning the
Leadbeater scandal, and part three publishes documents concerning
the Judge case.
      Therefore, the objections were not so much because of the
Christian interests displayed by the new leadership, but because
of the shift of the Theosophical Society from a very influential
philosophical movement to a cult, whose main interest at the time
was in the full emergence of the Matreya through Krishnamurti.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins

[Back to Top]

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