Theos-Talk Archives (May 2007 Message tt00037)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> Boris de Zirkoff 
> on the Theosophical Philosophy
> 
> ...For some years past, a tendency has existed among some 
> [theosophical] students ... to consider theosophy as some sort of 
> generalized approach to truth, a tradition, often somewhat  
> uncertain, concerning various aspects of the Universe and man, a 
> system of ideas and concepts which can hardly be defined with any 
> degree of exactness or clarity. It is most likely that this 
tendency 
> owes its origin to a desire to avoid any dogmatic attitude or the 
> creation of any kind of creed. The motive may have been laudable, 
but 
> the methods employed have been rather dubious.
> 
> Read more at:
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/dezirkoffontheosophy.htm
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>

Dear Daniel
Thank you once again for your recent excellent compilations as you 
attempt to demonstrate the hopes of Madame Blavatsky and the Mahatmas 
in terms of their vision for, and version of, Theosophy.
It is often stated by some that Theosophy in its essence is 
indefinable. So it is. From this they propose that therefore anything 
can be listed under the banner of Theosophy.
This is clearly not the case as it is its essence which is 
indescribable, not the teachings. If one accepts that Madame 
Blavatsky brought forth the modern teachings, as one surely must, it 
must be fair to assume that she and her teachers had a particular 
form in mind. Bishop Leadbeater was not chosen to bring it forth, 
neither was Rudolf Steiner nor Alice Bailey. Their teachings are all 
dependent upon the original Theosophy of Madame Blavatsky and the 
Mahatmas. Where these writers and teachers change the original form, 
from whence do they get their authority? If they think that Madame 
Blavatsky made many mistakes, as surely they must to contradict so 
many of her teachings, what proof do they have to demonstrate where 
she was wrong?
Madame Blavatsky relied on her teachers for much of her information. 
These teachers underwent rigorous training where their visions were 
checked and double checked again and again by their teachers and 
those who had gone before them. From where do Bishop Leadbeater et al 
get their information. It can't be from the Mahatmas as they state, 
because they thoroughly contradict them at almost every turn. So they 
must get it from their own minds. This might be, however true 
Theosophy requires much more evidence and rigor than this. Much of 
Madame Blavatsky's science has been validated by modern science as 
ably demonstrated by Leon Maurer on many occasions. Bishop Leadbeater 
and Dr Besant have only one scientist in history who claims some of 
their work in the book Occult Chemistry has some validity. However it 
has been ignored by every other legitimate scientist in the field and 
indeed roundly condemned by Professor J Michael McBride from the 
Dept. of Chemistry, Yale University who states "From beginning to end 
Occult Chemistry is a tale of deception and gullibility."
http://www.chem.yale.edu/~chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.ht
ml

In saying all of the above, those of us who bring these discussions 
forward are usually condemned and labelled as Blavatsky dogmatists. 
They claim anyone can be in possession of Theosophical knowledge. So 
they can. All we ask is that they demonstrate and validate it clearly 
and rigorously as Madame Blavatsky has in her works. As regards being 
dogmatists, nothing could be further from the truth. Madame Blavatsky 
did not wish us to believe anything she wrote. A true Theosophist 
believes nothing spoken or written, at least until they have 
presented it to the bar of their own intelligence and after thorough 
investigation and due diligence are prepared to accept it until 
further insight convinces them otherwise. This is the nature and 
operation of the open mind. This was Madame Blavatsky's method. The 
same cannot be said for most others. Where she explained her ideas 
often through dozens of associated examples and analogies, others 
merely issued authoritarian pronouncements derived from their own 
self-perceived authority.

Thank you again Daniel. Your compilations are invaluable.

Best wishes
Nigel