Hello everyone,
I just wanted to say hello, tell you a bit about my theosophical interests and ask a question.
I have been intereted in Theosophy for about 5 years and have read quite a lot in that time. I find that Leadbeater explained things clearly and simply so I am a big fan of his books. I find Bailey's compilation books are very informative but her main books are a little over-complicated. I think Blavatsky did an amazing job in introducing the world to Theosophy, but she sucked as a teacher! It is not that I am simple; just that I like things to be clear and concise.
Just over a year ago I came across a website (www.laurency.com) that looked really interesting so I ordered one of the books (The Philosopher's Stone). When I read it I was amazed - it was very much like theosophy but seemed to take it to the next level. Since then I have been reading Laurency's other books (which can be downloaded for free) and my understanding has grown exponentially.
So my question is: Have you guys heard of Henry T Laurency, read any of his stuff, and what do you think?
Nick, would it be possible to add a Laurency section to the forum?
Bye for now,
Ed

Hi, Ed, and welcome to the Forum.

You said,

"I find that Leadbeater explained things clearly and simply so I am a big fan of his books."

--> I am also a fan of his books. I find that Leadbeater gives some explanantions that are better than any other I have found. For example, I find his explanation of the differences between Nirmanakaya, Sambhogakaya, and Dharmakaya to be the best I have seen. I give Leadbeater credit for giving me a good core understanding of basic Theosophical ideas.

On the other hand, even though I have been a lifelong fan of Leadbeater, I must now admit some of his ideas are goofy. I am particularly disheartened to see how his later books talk about an Almighty God, the importance of the Eucharist, etc. The attitude I now take is, there is a lot of good as well as goofiness in his writings, so I make the final judgement as to each idea he taught.

"I find Bailey's compilation books are very informative but her main books are a little over-complicated."

--> I have never read Bailey's writings. Feel free to share what you have read.

"I think Blavatsky did an amazing job in introducing the world to Theosophy, but she sucked as a teacher!"

--> Her teaching abilities left something to be desired. On the other hand, the amount of teaching she did was huge, and we all owe her a great debt. I am continually amazed by how much information she covered. What she did is still truly inspiring. She was under a great deal of stress during her Theosophical teaching days, and I congratulate her for accomplishing as much as she did.

"It is not that I am simple; just that I like things to be clear and concise."

--> I do too. It is our job, then, to provide explanations that are clear and concise. It was all Blavatsky could do to get the teachings out, and it almost killed her twice. It is now our job to take her teachings and make them more understandable. I am presently involved in preparing an in-depth explanation of The Stanzas of Dzyan.

"Have you guys heard of Henry T Laurency, read any of his stuff, and what do you think?"

--> I have not. Please share some of his ideas. It will be fascinating to compare his ideas to Theosophy.

"Nick, would it be possible to add a Laurency section to the forum?"

--> Let's see if we can get a discussion about his ideas going first. Later, we can see if his writings need their own section. For now, let's settle for one thread on his writings.

I forgot to mention A.E. Powell, whose series of books on the etheric, astral, mental and causal bodies are probably the best theosophical books I have read. In terms of organisation, clarity, conciseness and informational value they are hard to beat and are highly recommended.

When I first discovered Theosophy it answered so many of the questions I had. But as my knowledge grew so did the number of questions, and it became clear that Theosophy could not answer them all. Then I discovered Laurency and everything fell into place.

If you (Nick) have not heard of Laurency then it is likely that none of the other forum members have either, because anyone who has read his books would surely have been as blown away as I was and would have definitely mentioned it in the forum.

Henry T Laurency was the pseudonym of a Swedish philosopher who died in the1980s. He wrote 8 books in Swedish, most of which have since been translated into English:
• The Philosopher’s Stone
• The Knowledge of Reality
• The Way of Man
• The Knowledge of Life – Parts 1 to 5
Only the first two books are available as printed books but most of them are available as free downloads from www.laurency.com

I think The Way of Man is probably the best book because it covers most of his ideas in a single (although very long) volume. If you prefer to read from a proper printed book then The Philosopher’s Stone is probably the best, although The Knowledge of Reality does include some interesting discussions about some of the early theosophists, which some of you may find interesting.

It is not possible to even give an overview of Laurency’s ideas in a single discussion post because his books are so comprehensive and detailed. They are a continuation of theosophy and will take your understanding to another level. If religion and spirituality are primary school teachings and theosophy is high school teachings, then Laurency is college teachings. Maybe in another hundred years (some of) mankind will be ready for university teachings.

I agree that starting a new section about Laurency is premature, especially if my assumption (about no one having read his books) is correct, so I will start a new topic in the Religions and Philosophies section. If anyone has any questions I will do my best to answer them, but the only way you can really learn is to read it for yourselves!

Ed

Ed,

Powell's books are indeed comprehensive. His books are a real contribution to our collection of Theosophical literature. I do remember, however, one or two things he said that do not make sense to me. I am presently at the ULT Theosophy conference in California, so I will take a look at Powell's books when I get home.

You said,

"When I first discovered Theosophy it answered so many of the questions I had. But as my knowledge grew so did the number of questions, and it became clear that Theosophy could not answer them all. Then I discovered Laurency and everything fell into place."

--> I will be curious which questions Theosophy does not answer, yet Laurency does. I see you have started a Laurency thread, so we will see what you come up with.

"If anyone has any questions I will do my best to answer them, but the only way you can really learn is to read it for yourselves!"

--> I am not planning to read Laurency's books in the near future, so if you can outline his basic ideas, and how they compare and contrast with well-known Theosophical writers, that would be a big help.

That is not an easy one to answer because my knowledge has increased so much during the past 18 months that it is diificult to remember what I didn't know beforehand (if you follow me). One thing that really springs to mind is the confusion in Theosophy about the monad. The prefix "mon" implies that it is a single unit whereas theosophy states that it is three units (the 3 permanent atoms that make up the "higher self"). Laurency identifies the monad as the "self" (the source of our individual consciousness and identity) not the "higher self". Laurency states that the purpose of life is the evolution of consciousness and as the monad/self evolves it rises up through the chain of permanent atoms (over the course of thousands of incarnations). In regular human beings the monad/self is centred in one of the three permanent of the lower self (physical, astral or mental). In more advanced beings the monad/self is centred in one of the three permanent atoms of the higher self. The monads of the spiritual masters that the early theosophists learnt from (DK, KH, etc) were centred in the higher self, which is where the confusion about the monad arose. Incidentally some of Laurency's information came from an earlier version of Theosophy called Hylozoics which was devised by Pythagoras (an incarnation of KH). It is not possible to answer your question any better than that because as I said earlier, Theosophy is like high school and laurency is like college. When you were at high school you thought you had a pretty good grasp of the subject matter, but when you got to college you realised there was a whole new level to learn about. But no one can tell you about it - you need to go to college and discover it for yourself.

That is your choice, but if and when you do finally get around to reading Laurency I guarantee you will regret not having done it sooner!

Ed

Ed,
Actually, I find Laurency to be complicated; seems over analyzed and very systemetized to me. Too many selves, too many numbered versions of such, some gaps he perceives in Theosophy he seems to have filled in himself to match his systemized approach. As well, the approach takes the soul out of the teachings, for me.