Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00416)

Jerry writes,

>  Rich, you seem to have already reached your conclusion (i.e,
> that there IS a difference).  I guess all JHE has to do now is to tie
> up some loose ends?  Apparently Jim can go home. (?)  JHE was
> unable to demonstrate to me that any real differences exist.  Now Jim
> wants to try his luck.

Jerry, you are certainly right that I am positive that differences agree
between HPB and the Besant/CWL/AAB stuff that came later.  And I am certain
that you think there are differences as well.  You have admitted this many
times over.

The question is not, "Are there differences?"  but rather, "What kind of
differences are there?"  You seem to be maintaining that the differences are
merely semantic.  I agree that there are some issues which are purely
semantic.

You do not believe that there are substantial differences.  I say there are.

But I want to ask a psychological question now, and I am truly interested in
your answer.  If the differences between HPB and many of her later followers
were purely semantic, and this could be fairly well demonstrated, why do you
think there is such opposition to these later systems from "purists" (aka
"fundamentalists") like me?

Do you think I am so blind as to believe that the world begins and ends with
HPB?  Don't you think I would be THRILLED to find as many people as possible
spreading the teachings of Theosophy?  If I actually thought that Leadbetter
was teaching the same basic substance that HPB was teaching, with just
slightly difference words, a minor change here or there, a few personal
touches, why do you think I would not welcome CWL with open arms?

There are a few points that I do not agree with Purucker about, but you will
NEVER catch me badmouthing him, even though he is not a "ULT" oriented
teacher.  Purucker, it seems to me, goes beyond HPB in a few areas, but in
almost every case is teaching the same things she is, sometimes using
different words.  So I don't quarrel with Purucker students, and I am
thrilled that they have come to the teachings through him.  I have more
friends than I can count down in Pasadena and Point Loma, even though we
disagree on a few terminological points.  That's peanuts.

But I think Besant and CWL (and later AAB) did a MAJOR number on the
teachings, left important things out, got the principles and planes
bass-ackwards, and really jumbled up the public mind about Theosophy.  Not
least in their blunders (though AAB is quite innocent of this one) was the
Krishnamurti scandal, in fact the whole endeavor of looking for a little boy
to be the World Teacher, the lawsuits with K's father, and then poor
Krishnaji finally walking out on the silly Theosophists (good for him !)  It
was a fiasco, start to finish.  Not to mention CWL's BIZARRE psychic visions
of life on Mars etc. etc. that have all been proved a bunch of rot, and even
been removed from later versions of the CWL books.

To me the differences are profound.  But the discussion might show HOW and
WHY they are different, the extent of the differences.  That in itself would
be important, and worth bothering with.