Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00468)

Liesel wrote,

> Rich,
>
> Seems to me what you're looking for is another generation of Theosophists,
> who are carbon copies of HPB. I think that's not what she meant. I think
> she'd be horrified, at theosophists who'd just try to parrot her. The value
> of her teachings is that everyone can interpret them in his/her own way.
> Besides, you guys always get stuck on second generation Theosophists. There
> are people nowadays who are writing theosophy, & the good ones are really
> worth looking at & thinking about, because they live now, & interpet
> theosophy for now, not for 100 years ago.


Well, I think I agree with you halfway, Liesel.  It is hard for me to take
Theosophists seriously if they haven't heard of HPB and teach stuff quite
differently than what she taught.  For me, the modern Theosophical movement
begins with her, and there would have been no Theosophical movement (in the
narrow sense) last century if she hadn't sacrificed herself for it.  So yes,
I really look for people to take her seriously and learn fro her.

But to be fair to myself, I regularly bring up many, many Theosophical
workers today who aren't necessarily ULT associates who I think are carrying
on the work wonderfully.  Even if we have significant disagreements.  Eldon,
Jerry HE, Daniel Caldwell, David Reigle, lots and lots of others are
publishing, working, and doing their level best to bring the teaching to the
public and to scholars.  Some of them are Purucker students, some of them are
TOTALLY independent of any school or system of Theosophy.  But they seem to
be presenting stuff in line with what the Masters gave out to start with.
 Sure, further developments are great, but contradictions with the original
stuff makes me take a step or two back and think "uh -oh !"