Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00284)

JRC writes:

"An *excellent* point, and one that, if remembered, might curb the
attempts so many have made over the years to narrow the originally broad
range of studies and activities that composed Theosophy. H.P.B. *herself*
never would have claimed to be teaching `source' Theosophy, only
that she was one of countless messengers that have appeared over the
centuries each articulating but a tiny and incomplete piece of an almost
incomprehensibly large body of teachings....none of the messengers
claiming to be talking about anything other than a small piece ....."

Although I would more or less agree with this statement, it seems to
somewhat be an *overstatement*

Yes, I know what HPB *herself* says about `a few truth' on p. xxii of Vol. I
of *The Secret Doctrine*:

"I say `a *few* truths,' advisedly, because......" etc. etc. But she
also says in the preceding sentences of that text:

"...the outline of a few fundamental truths....is now permitted to see
the light, AFTER LONG MILLENNIUMS of the most profound silence and secrecy."

And elsewhere KH says: "We have broken the silence of centuries...."

Well, I'm certainly for "the orginally broad range of studies and activities
that composed Theosophy." But surely anyone who seriously studies HPB's
writings and the Mahatma Letters will by necessity have to study world
religions, philsophies east and west, other esoteric systems, etc. ,e tc. in
order to comprehend and see in context much of what HPB gives out.

As far as I am concerned , students of theosophy can read and study or not
read and study whatever they choose. But what has concerned me over 25 years
is that so many students of Theosophy have little comprehension of what HPB
wrote and taught. And yet they themselves beleived that they knew what HPB
had taught!

John Coats, the late International President of the Adyar Theosophical Society
once wrote:

"The percentage of members, who have not as yet ever read any books by
H.P. Blavatsky is regrettably high." And he is quoted in one pamphlets
as saying:

"There's a great need for the deepening of the individual member's understanding
of theosophy. A lot of people skate superfically over the surface of theosophy
without really going into it in depth."

In my 2 decades of study of Theosophy and interaction with students, I have
found that Coats' observations are pretty accurate.

Now if people want to study Seth or Cayce or Oahpse or Urantia or a thousand
other things, that's great, but what's wrong with students of Theosophy wanting
to study HPB's writings and the Master's letters. Maybe, JRC, you have
mastered the 10,000 + pages of HPB's writings and have already moved on to
deeper and more esoteric things. But others may still want to study what
Blavatsky left us.

In some of your postings to Eldon you have mentioned that HPB only gave out
a tiny portion of what could be given out on the Devas and other beings
of the inner worlds. Well? Do most students of Theosophy even understand that
tiny portion? And if you know more or have access to more than that
"tiny portion" given out by HPB and other Theosophical writers, then maybe
you need to write a book and help all of us expand our knowledge and
understanding on these subjects.

You say that HPB was "one of countless messengers that have appeared over the
centuries each articulating but a tiny and incomplete piece of an almost
incomprehensibly large body of teachings..."

How do you know? What are your sources for this statement? Now as I first
said, I more or less agree with this statement of yours, but where does this
statement take us? Does this imply that we need not study HPB's writings since
she articulated but "a tiny and incomplete piece" of the "incoprehensibly
large body of teachings"? JRC, what other writings should we study? HPB
in her writings point to literally hundreds of religious, occult and esoteric
writings that might be of some benefit to serious students. I'm sure that
you can point out others. I believe I can, too!

And you say that HPB was "one of countless messengers..." Would you please
inform the Theos network of whom you refer to. Would you be so kind as to
give us a list of say 100 of these messengers. Some of us may find the time
and energy to read some the writings of these other countless messengers.
I personally find that most Theosophical students don't have the time, energy
and stamina to read and study even HPB's own writings, not counting the
voluminous writings of Judge, Besant, Leadbeater, de Purucker, Bailey,
Steiner, Ballard, Prophet, etc, in the *limited* Theosophical tradition of
the last 120 years.

I am NOT saying that students should blindly believe what HPB wrote, but it
would be nice if they would at least read some of what she wrote. Now if they
don't want to read her, okay, that fine! But I believe (and I think Jerry HE,
Rich, Eldon and even possibly Paul J would agree to some extent) that there
is alot of pseudo-Theosophy out there in the marketplace; tons of "wild and
fanciful speculations" on Theosophical and Esoteric subjects that bear little
if any resemblance to Theosophy as given by HPB and yet the writers of this
pseudo-Theosophy would want you to believe that this "stuff" comes from the
same SOURCE as where HPB got her stuff!

I certainly agree that we should NOT nail HPB upon a pedestal but all I'm
advocating is that *interested* students should try to take some time and effort
to read and possibly even study HPB's writings and give them thoughtful
consideration! Attempting to seriously understand the *ideas* to be found
in HPB's writings and to try to understand the *system of philosopohy* which
she outlines should not be equated with some attempt to establish her as
an ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, an INFALLIBLE SOURCE, and some attempt to put her on
some pedestal!

If you have found other reliable sources of esoteric knowledge, that's great,
I would suggest that you turn your efforts to trying to embody some of that
in a book to help point out to others those sources that you have discovered.

The above is food for thought,

Daniel Caldwell