Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00356)

DC: So when you write that "from this point of view, all forms of 
teaching are perfectly correct for each individual" how do we apply 
that to what HPB writes about "the FALSE ideas of a personal God and 
a personal, carnalized Saviour"?

PL: Simply that those false ideas have been generated because of the 
relative degree of illusion that the individual is in. BTW, I do not 
subscribe to 'personal, carnalized Saviour', neither does AAB or DK.

DC:Or how do we apply this "point of view" to what KH writes about 
Mr. Hume disfiguring the Mahatmas' "sacred philosophy"? 

PL: It was 'right' for Hume to reach that point for himself and 
declare a viewpoint. It is simply a point from which he develops 
discrmination and deeper understanding in future lives. Of course it 
is 'disfigured' from our or KH's [point of view.

DC: Are you saying that the "leaders" mentioned by HPB in EXTRACT 1 
were right and also wrong. And that dear HPB was also right in what 
she said in EXTRACT 1 .... AND she was also wrong? 

PL: No, and really that should be obvious to you. Be careful about 
playing word games.

DC: If "all forms of teaching are PERFECTLY correct for each 
individual" then the ideas of a personal God and a personal, 
carnalized Saviour were PERFECTLY CORRECT for the individuals 
referred to by HPB. Is this what you are trying to tell us?

PL: In that context, yes.

DC: Furthermore, in light of this "point of view" line of thinking 
you advocate, why did you write so strongly against what Nicholas 
wrote which I quoted in my last posting. His "take" on the 
teachings and Alice Bailey were PERFECTLY CORRECT for him. Right? 
PL: Right.

DC:So why did you get so bent out of shape and 
write: "NW's 'Theosophy's Shadow' article is an example of such 
sleight of hand. This is a classic case of projection IMHO, where 
> undiscriminating and prejudiced minds within the entity of the TS, 
> dare I say behemoth, attack the very teaching to which they claim 
to be devoted. There is a non- recognition of a new phase of the 
> teaching which the Great Ones are well and truly behind."

PL: As I keep on repeating, NW's article seems to be part of the 
general TS propaganda, that does not allow members to have freedom 
of choice, and is simply anti AAB.

Do you ask questions from the middle of the fence, or do you have a 
point of view on AAB? i.e. have you read and studied the works of DK 
in depth?

I would also add a comment about the tendency with groups such as 
this to be caught up in the intrigues and politics around the 
teachings as opposed to the teachings themselves. Also, quite often 
we emphasise differences in approaches, as opposed to similarities.
P.