v1 on Pseudo-Theosophy

This is a compilation of 40 critical articles from Theosophical periodicals comparing the neo-theosophy or pseudo-theosophy of Annie Besant, C.W. Leadbeater and their followers, with the original Theosophical writings of Blavatsky. This material should all be in Public Domain.
of 192
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  ON PSEUDO-THEOSOPHY    A Compilation from Theosophical Literature Critiques of Besant and Leadbeater's “Neo-Theosophy” compared to the original Theosophy presented by Blaats!y Volume I ------------ Contents 1. Is Theosophy a Definite Philosophy? - Wilks2. The Akashic Records - B. Sc.. An Appeal - !lark . Ans#er to Besant - $artyn%. Basic Principles - &irkoff '. Annie Besant - Prentice(. Besant)s *endetta - +.A.W.,. !andles in the Sn - Re/ie#0. !lair/oyance and $orality - e/y1. A !o3parati/e Stdy - Red fern11. !.W.. Astralian Scandal - 4ddin5ton12. ead6eater)s 7cclt !he3istry 1. 7r Delded Brethren - S3ythe1 . Doctrine We Pro3l5ate - &irkoff 1%. So3e Propositions - 4nders6y1'. +ifty 8ears - Pls Ten - S3ythe1(. The +ontainhead - Besant1,. 9enesis of a $ytholo5y - 4nders6y10. 7n 9od - $iddleton2. The :idden *oice - W.4. S3all21. :is $a;esty)s 7ppostion - Ro5er 22. :odson !orrespondence2. :o# to S<are the Teachin5s - =d5e2 . The .!.!. and the T.S.2%. Is This Theosophy? - Re/ie#2'. >eep the Teachin5s !lear - &irkoff 2(. >hn Takes 7n $orrish2,. .!.!. 7ri5ins 20. ead6eater and the Incas - :are. ead6eater !ri3es - 4sotericist1. ead6oater +atally Torpedoed - $.R.=.2. etter to =inara;adasa - Winner . The i6eral !atholic !hrch - Ben;a3in . $ahat3as and Reli5ion - Wilks%. $anas on @eo-Theosophy '. $ars and 4arth - Besant  (. $ars and $ercry - The Path,. $ars and $ercry - Dalell0. $istaken @otions - 4.P.W. . The 4theric Do6le - +arthin5 1. Theosophy Tre and +alse - 4d5e---------------- [1] IS THEOSOPHY A DEFINITE PHILOSOPHY? It is the policy of the Adyar Theosophical Society to insist that Theosophy has nodefinite teachin5 or doctrines. This is #hat the leadin5 7fficials of the Society 3aintain andepect the 3e36ers to accept. Dr. Bendit for ea3pleC in the $arch 10'1 #cience $roup%ournal  C ondonC specifically stated that Theosophy . . . is a thin5 #hich can ne/er 6e definedand one can ne/er say this is TheosophyC this is not)  and later in the sa3e letter he refers to. . . #hat #e so often . . . and #ron5ly . . . refer to as the teachin5s of Theosophy). In a later letter in the S.9.=. =ly 10'1C he #rites What I #rote 3oreo/erC I #rote as $eneral #ecretary  Eitalics hisFC and to defend the line of the Society in this 3atter . . . e3phasiin5 that he #aslayin5 do#n and defendin5 the policy of the T.S. re5ardin5 the noneistence of any definiteteachin5 called Theosophy.$r. Sri Ra3C or PresidentC confir3s this policy 6y statin5 in his openin5 re3arks to the,th Soth Indian !onference at AdyarC <oted in The Canadian Theosophist  C =ly-A5stC10'1C 7r nderstandin5 of Theosophy constantly chan5es as #e 5ro# and 3atre. In fact I#old say that the lon5er one is in the Theosophical $o/e3ent the 3ore difficlt it is to say#hat Theosophy is 6ecaseC first of allC it is so s6tleG secondlyC it is profondG and thirdly it isall e36racin5 and co3prehensi/e.There is nothin5 ne# in this Adyar T.S. attitde to#ard Theosophy. +or years pastC or rather for decadesC one has heard it said that - Theosophy is #hat each one thinks it isC or yocannot say thisC or thatC is Theosophy. :o#e/erC to s at leastC it is ne# to ha/erepresentati/e 7fficials of the Society co3e for#ard and lay it pon the line that there is nosch thin5 as a definite philosophy called Theosophy.Both in the etters of the $ahat3as and thro5hot The #ecret &octrine  it is clai3edthat a redeclaration of so3e of the Ancient Wisdo3C the 4soteric PhilosophyC held in the5ardianship of the BrothersC is 6ein5 5i/en ot spported 6y inn3era6le <otations fro3ancient sorces. ahatma Letters  pa5e 1(C +or the present #e offer or kno#led5e - so3eportions of it at least - to 6e either accepted or re;ected on its o#n 3erits independently -entirely so - fro3 the sorce fro3 #hich it e3anates.This philosophy contains clear and definite doctrines and teachin5s #hich 3ake aco3prehensi/e #hole sch as the #orld has not had in historic ti3es. It contains all 3anneeds to kno# to orientate hi3self in the Hni/erseC #ith kno#led5e #ith #hich to carry ot hisfnctionC the prpose of h3anity on this planet. $..)s pa5e 2 - The trths and 3ysteriesof occltis3 constitteG indeedC a 6ody of the hi5hest spirital i3portanceC at once profondand practical for the #orld at lar5e. 8etC it is not as a 3ere addition to the tan5led 3ass of theory or speclation in the #orld of science that they are 6ein5 5i/en to yoC 6t for their practical 6earin5 on the interests of 3ankind. This philosophy the +onders deno3inated 6ythe ancient na3e Theosophy. Hnless this state3ent is repdiatedC ho# can it 6e 3aintainedthat Theosophy has no definite doctrines or teachin5s?  This is #hat the $ahat3as #roteC $..)s pa5e %1C We ha/e offered to eh3e thepri3e/al strata of 3an)s 6ein5C his 6asic natreC and lay 6are the #onderfl co3plications of his inner Self - so3ethin5 ne/er to 6e achie/ed 6y physiolo5y or e/en psycholo5y in itslti3ate epression - and de3onstrate it scientifically.The Adyar clai3 that Theosophy has no definite doctrines has 6eco3e spre3elyi3portant 6ecase of the ne# dispensation in the T.S.C a co3plete re/ersal of policyC as areslt of #hich the 3e36ers are e/ery#here no# r5ed to stdy The #ecret &octrine  and The ahatma Letters . +or ' years the 3e36ers of the Adyar T.S. ha/e 6een led to stdyand proselytie @eo-TheosophyC the philosophical syste3 of A.B. and !.W..C #hich is lar5ely6ased pon their clai3ed clair/oyant researchesC in place of Theosophy.@eo-Theosophy #as do6tless in/ented to pt for#ard a si3plified /ariant of Theosophy for poplar cons3ptionC 6t this atte3pt 5ot ot of hand. The #hole effort of theSociety #as trned to#ard increasin5 3e36ership. TheosophyC the astereC sol-satisfyin5philosophy of the early daysC #as #atered do#n and 3aterialied to 3ake easy readin5. It#as distorted to pander to poplar pre;dice. It #as denatred so that its i3personal spirital/ales #ere forsaken for e3otional i3itations. Ths @eo-Theosophy #as esta6lished in the Adyar T.S. and pon this teachin5 alone has the 3ass of the 3e36ership 6een nrtred thishalf centry. The #hole Society #as 5i/en o/er to @eo-TheosophyC apart fro3 reactionary3e36ersC #ho as indi/idalsC lod5esC and one @ational SectionC resisted this spplantin5 of Theosophy 6y the ne#ly concocted @eo-Theosophy of A.B. and !.W.. In 4n5landC +ranceCIrelandC AstraliaC AstriaC 9er3anyC and !anadaC Eand Dr. StokesC al3ost alone in the HnitedStatesF 3e36ers fo5ht to epose and oppose this de5radation of Theosophy. So3e of these 3e36ers left the SocietyC findin5 their /ie#s refsed epressionG others - the 3a;ority -stayed inC the 6etter to fi5ht the e/il #hich had o/ertaken the Adyar T.S.C #ith the lti3ate ai3of reclai3in5 the Society for Theosophy - the 4soteric Philosophy of the Brothers.:.P.B.)s 6ooks #ere 6ack-shel/ed and 3e36ers refsed access to the3 on the ecseof their 6ein5 too difficlt for the3. :er 6ooksC her na3eC practically disappeared fro3 T.S.lod5es and p6lications. @e/er #ere her 6ooks ad/ertisedC #hilst lar5e space #as reser/edfor @eo-Theosophical 6ooks of A.B. and !.W.. Rarely #as her na3e 3entioned. +or lon5periods The #ecret &octrine( )sis( The *ey to Theosophy  C #ere not procra6le fro3 the Adyar Theosophical P6lishin5 :ose. At the sa3e ti3e the 3ass of the 3e36ershipC 3any of the3 3alcontents fro3 $ethodist !hrches #ho #ere told that Theosophy #ill 5i/e yo 6ackyor reli5ion for3ed the h5e 6ody of #illin5C 6lind follo#ersC han5in5 pon theprononce3ents of their Belo/ed eadersC and <ite innocent of any kno#led5e of Theosophy itself.When The ahatma Letters  #as p6lished in 102C the 3ost /ala6le of all 6ooks inthe opinion of 3ost of its stdentsC and n<estiona6ly epoch 3akin5 in its i3pact pon theTheosophical $o/e3entC the difference 6et#een Theosophy and @eo-Theosophy #ashi5hli5htedC 6t this 6ookC pon the ad/ice of AdyarC has not 6een stdied 6y the o6edient3e36ers ntil no#C thirty-ei5ht years later. @o one can read the clearly ennciated teachin5of the Adepts 5i/en to the t#o 4n5lish3en in IndiaC to spearhead their philosophy in the WestC#ithot 6eco3in5 i33ediately conscios of the conflict in teachin5C in /alesC and in attitdeto lifeC #hich eists 6et#een these teachin5s and @eo-Theosophy.It is /ery i3portant that a clear distinction 6e 3ade and 3aintained 6et#eenTheosophyC the 4soteric Philosophy of the BrothersC 3ade a/aila6le thro5h the #orks of their A5entC :.P.B.C and their o#n ahatma Letters C on the one handG and all s6se<entteachin5s #hich offer to eplainC enlar5eC or carry for#ard these doctrines fro3 the SorceC onthe other hand. Whether it 6e the @eo-Theosophy of A.B. and !.W..C the psychicprononce3ents of Alice BaileyC the #orks of Willia3 >in5slandC or those of Dr. de PrckerC  the interpretation of The #ecret &octrine 6y >atherine :illiardC or that of $r. 9. Bar6orkaC allthese and 3any 3ore shold 6e kno#n and realied as co33entaries all 3ore or lesscolored 6y the preconceptionsC if not 6y the psychic conceptionsC of the athorC pon theori5inal teachin5s of the Adepts. The stdent sholdC at all ti3esC kno# #hether he isstdyin5 TheosophyC or so3e co33entary ponC or /ariant of Theosophy.@o#C #hen the 3e36ers for the first ti3e for half a centryC are 6ein5 trned to thestdy of Theosophy itselfC e/erythin5 shold 6e fine? @ot so easily is 5reat ad/anta5e #onfor enli5hten3ent. They are also 6ein5 r5ed to stdy @eo-Theosophy firstC the reslt 6ein5that Theosophy and @eo-Theosophy #ill 6eco3e inetrica6ly 3ied in the 3inds of the3e36ersC a reslt 5reatly to 6e deplored. !onse<ently #e stron5ly oppose this policy at Adyar #hich declares that Theosophy has no definite teachin5 and that no one can sayTheosophy teaches thisC and not that. Both Theosophy and @eo-Theosophy are definitephilosophiesC 6t different as the sn fro3 the 3oon fro3 one anotherC and this shold 6eclearly reco5nied 6y al#ays sin5 different na3es for each of the3.Why is it spre3ely i3portant to keep the philosophy called TheosophyC in its n3iedprity as a li/in5 /ital teachin5 a/aila6le for those #ho can se it for the 6enefit of h3anity?4/ery spirital philosophy of the pastC #e are toldC e3anated fro3 the BrotherhoodC #hich hasin its cstodianship all sch kno#led5eG and e/ery atte3pt to enli5hten 3ankind spiritallyhas sooner or later sffered the sa3e fate. Relin<ished a3on5st the co33onality of 3enC itsffers distortion to confor3 #ith poplar pre;dice. Seied pon 6y the priests in all a5esC ahatma Letters C pa5e %,C I5norance created 9ods and cnnin5 took ad/anta5e of opportnity. ook at India and look at !hristendo3 and Isla3C at =dais3 and +etichis3. It ispriestly i3postre that rendered these 9ods so terri6le to 3anG it is reli5ion that 3akes of hi3the selfish 6i5otC the fanatic that hates all 3ankind ot of his o#n sect #ithot renderin5 hi3any 6etter or 3oral for it. It is 6elief in 9od and 9ods that 3akes t#o-thirds of h3anity thesla/es of a handfl of those #ho decei/e the3 nder the false pretense of sa/in5 the3C etc.TheosophyC or any spirital teachin5C is not a co3forta6le thin5 to li/e #ith. It de3andscora5e and deter3ination and ns#er/in5 dedication to trth. It de3ands effort andsacrifices fro3 the ease and co3fort and pleasre lo/in5 part of 3anC and a6o/e all itre<ires that the 9iant Weed)C the o6session and lo/e of selfC 3st sooner or later 6eattacked and e/entally destroyed. 4ffort therefore 3st constantly 6e 3aintained 6y allthose #ho percei/e the need to offset the conscios and nconscios 3eans e/er acti/e todra5 the philosophy do#n to the personal le/el to 6eco3e one 3ore reli5ion to confse3ankind and to stand in the #ay of his spirital pro5ress.+rtherC apart fro3 the natral h3an #eaknesses #e all are heir toC there are thosesinister po#ers #hich 6oth the $ahat3as and :.P.B. declare are al#ays on the lookot #herethe aspiration for the enli5hten3ent of 3ankind eistsC in order to oppose and distort itsoperationC and deflect it fro3 its prpose. They sally scceed in doin5 thisC as theye/idently did in the Adyar Theosophical Society to a lar5e de5reeC 6y s6tly inflencin5 the3inds of those 3ost pro3inent in the Society #ho #ere takin5 the lead. It is sally theindi/idals #ho 6elie/e they are tterly sincere in their desire to #ork for othersC #ho ne/er drea3 of <estionin5 their o#n secret 3oti/esC #ho pro/e 3ost /lnera6leC and helplessly6eco3e si3ply tools in the hands of these Po#ersC #hose fnction it is to oppose Spiritalli5ht.@o# there is no #ay of a/oidin5 this atte3pt 6y the +orces of Darkness to oppose thePo#ers of i5ht. Accordin5 to :.P.B. it is the la# inherent in the /ery natre of thin5s.Theosophy tells s that e/ery pro;ection of Spirital ener5y into h3an life ato3aticallyin/okes an effort of an opposite kind 6y the +orces of Darkness to oppose it. This conflict6et#een these t#o 5reat inflences takes place in the li/es of 3en and #o3en. The forces of 


Jul 23, 2017
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks