A bit of reassurance?

[Silenciumetaurum]

Lieutenant Dan is my co-pilot.

[caleb]

Life is like a box 'a choc'lates. You never know what you're gonna get.

[R. Eugene Laughlin]

Purple monkey dishwasher!.

Again, Theosophy is not to be blame for this.

Try to pay attention. I'm criticizing New Age literature. Blavatsky is directly responsible for loads of misinformation, either out of ignorance of the Eastern concepts she wrote so much about, or because she intentionally obfuscated them for some unknown reason. She managed to package it well though, the timing was good and it struck a chord with a lot of people, etc. Then others, failing to detect the errors it seems, have carried them forth through the literary history of the New Age stream. So what I'm saying is that the literature is "bad" because the source material is bad and too many people have been willing to perpetuate the "bad"ness.

In summary, you criticize the New Age and Theosophy for bringing together knowledge from different sources (which were unknown at the time) and because they were not 100% accurate in respect to their origins, it is a flawed work. Much of what makes up the Golden Dawn is a syncretism of Jewish, Egyptian, Greek, and Babylonian magic. This is the very same syncretism at work that you are looking down on with Theosophical work. You condemn Theosophy for bringing together systems that cannot be easily brought into direct translation, yet this applicable to the Western Hermetic Tradition. You will find no one Esoteric tradition that is completely original in its work and 100% direct replica of the original.

The failings of one literature doesn't absolve the failings of another. Not only is New Age literature erroneous, it's harmful for the reasons I specified previously. If someone actually tries to work magically with the convoluted cosmological constructs that typify the movement, they'll instill all that mess right down at the core of their psyche, where their experience of the world is formed. Nasty business.

Now, if you want to discuss other literatures, that would be another topic.

[Aum]

Try to pay attention. I'm criticizing New Age literature.

You’ve brought up Blavatsky and Theosophy in almost all your posts.

So what I'm saying is that the literature is "bad" because the source material is bad and too many people have been willing to perpetuate the "bad"ness.

What you’ve concluded is only that New Age is bad because YOU think it’s bad. And because supposedly people have spread this information that YOU think is bad. It’s your opinion only, and others have worked with the system quite well.

The failings of one literature doesn't absolve the failings of another. Not only is New Age literature erroneous, it's harmful for the reasons I specified previously.

Reasons which have fallen short of anything substantial.

If someone actually tries to work magically with the convoluted cosmological constructs that typify the movement, they'll instill all that mess right down at the core of their psyche, where their experience of the world is formed. Nasty business.

There are a lot of dangerous things in the world. Driving in your car everyday is quite dangerous, yet people do it everyday and get by it. Theosophy is a wide scope of many different teachings and practices, not just cosmology. New Age has a wide range of practices as well. To condemn a only part of a greater scope is literature is erroneous in itself. The biggest ideal Theosophy teaches is to live by a pure life, with moral and character development. If you were versed in the subject you would know this.

Now, if you want to discuss other literatures, that would be another topic.

The reason I brought up other literature is because the original poster’s sentiment in regards to New Age literature and what he deems true Occultism to be.

[R. Eugene Laughlin]

What you’ve concluded is only that New Age is bad because YOU think it’s bad. And because supposedly people have spread this information that YOU think is bad. It’s your opinion only, and others have worked with the system quite well.

I think it's a bad literature because of the erroneous information. It is my opinion, generally, that literature so full of erroneous information is bad. Yes. If you'd like to go line by line with some of the literature and argue over the errors, I'm willing.

What's more, I think the literature on the whole has been a detriment to the occult studies community, specifically because the cosmological constructs that typify the New Age are internally inconsistent, which in the context of an intense magical development program, encodes cognitive conflicts that have deep and lasting consequences. You don't have to believe that if you don't want to, but it is so. Modern occult literature on the whole fosters the same problem. Eclecticism. Meh. The bane of the Post-Information Age.

[Aum]

What you’ve concluded is only that New Age is bad because YOU think it’s bad. And because supposedly people have spread this information that YOU think is bad. It’s your opinion only, and others have worked with the system quite well.

I think it's a bad literature because of the erroneous information. It is my opinion, generally, that literature so full of erroneous information is bad. Yes. If you'd like to go line by line with some of the literature and argue over the errors, I'm willing..

Well, I respect your opinion but I disagree and I have mine as well and we'll just leave it at that.

[caleb]

@ Aum

I'm just curious, if you're a new ager what are you doing on a site devoted to ritual magick? People never seem to mix the two in my experience.