Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00284)

Eldon: "What matters is that the original source Teachings are taught and
understood in our theosophical groups, even if we personally may choose to
disagree with bits and pieces of them. When later writers disagree with HPB
and "The Mahatma Letters," we should note and consider those differences,
rather than cover them up or deny that they exist."

Of all your recent, extremely intelligent posts, this strikes me as a concise
statement of the most fundamental issue Theosophists face today:

***What do we do with later writers who differ from the source teachings of
Theosophy?***

Your are quite right, many people are denying that Leadbeater (thanks for the
correct spelling) and Bailey and Besant and Steiner have different "takes" on
Theosophy, and these takes are NOT, as some are so vigorously asserting,
merely "verbal" differences.

Verbal differences are confusing, but really just words. Substantial
differences are causes of grave concern, because if we lose the knowledge of
the source teachings, we lose the vibration of the Masters, we lose our inner
connection to the great Work being done today, and we lose Theosophy pure and
simple.

It continues to baffle me that people are either pretending, or are sincerely
ignorant, that Bailey and others differ substantially from HPB. For
instance, we read in the Secret Doctrine that every planet in this solar
system will go through seven rounds, as seven principles or aspects are
developed. Bailey in A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, indicates that Venus is in
her "fifth and last round." This is not reducible to a difference of words,
it is a flat contradiction in concepts.

And so students, ultimately, have to choose what to do with this and the
myriad other substantial contradictions. Choose sides? Find a way to
harmonize? Ignore the differences? Look for yet the next "new revelation"
to tell us what to do?

Rich