Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00345)

>Eldon,
>
>It's my considered opinion that later writers also offer valid
>points of view. I've gotten some further insights from reading
>Annie Besant, Christmas Humphreys, Jinarajadasa, Harry Van
>Gelder. I don't always get the idea right away when it's first
>presented to me, but when I can view it as presented by another
>Theosophist, it sometimes sinks in. There's one important
>Buddhist doctrine, Ignorance, which dawned on me while I was
>reading Martin Luther King's sermons. Reading or hearing the
>same idea as presented by different persons helps me learn.
>That may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it is mine.
>
>Liesel

I would agree that there is value to be found in each writer's works.
As a teenager, I was initially attracted to Theosophy through "The Astral
Plane" by Leadbeater, and initially got and read all of his books. (I
even owned for a few years my own copy of "The Lives of Alcyone.")
When I later started reading Purucker, I found that there was an entirely
different slant on Theosophy.

We can look about us and see perhaps dozens of ways that the original
theosophical ideas have blended in with popular thought. Each such "blending"
changes somewhat, and perhaps appeals to a different group of people. Just
as we could belong to any religion and be good Theosophists, we could likewise
"belong" to any theosophical variant, to any variation on the basic theme.

I'd would find that the source of conflict arises between different
theosophical groups when there is a tendency to present their variations as
Theosophy itself, instead of the original presentation, rather that presenting
their variations as something extra. When that happens, then a group has to
prove that other groups are not theosophical in order for their claim to be
the *original* to stand. If we all agreed that HPB and the source writings are
original Theosophy and later writings are our favorite variations, we do away
with the source of conflict among us.

-- Eldon