Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00241)

Daniel, I see what you mean.
Not all views can be true. Perhaps only one view is true.
Many views are false.
But is falsification not the proof that an original exists?

By their fruits they will be known.

An Occultists is only recognized by an Occultist.

Truth is only recognized by Truth.

You can expand the argument and say: Also the Catholic Church says: We are 
the true organization, Theosophists are from the devil, etc.
Why do you waste your time with Theosophy instead try to get a blessing from 
the Pope?

The simliarity can only be on the outer form, but not in spirit.

GdeP's hints in his "Insignia majestatis" - which would enlight much of the 
topic when you would include into on your online article - help much to 
clarify which criteria make a messenger.

The false logic of people who claim that AAB (or CWL) is allegedly a 
"natural development" is that they see the common, but fade out the 
contradictions.
HPB is the likmus test. No later day messenger, which teachings are not 
consistent in spirit with HPB, cannot be true, because HPB's writings bear 
the stamp of the truth of all great Initiates of all ages.
And universality is - as GdeP explained so well - one of the touchstones to 
test a teaching. False teachings - G. B. Shaw also said - are only for a 
special time, but are not lasting.

The fearful student becomes rigid and rejects new teachings as he/she is 
unable to test and compare them. Only reason why the public messenger of the 
last quarter of the 20th Century was not recognized by the Theosophists, 
although he certainly worked. Rejecting true "new" teachings (which are 
always the old ones) lead to crystallization, the main condition of the TM 
today.

Until today I have never found GdeP's teaching sinconsistent with HPB, even 
if he goes one step further. But I have found teachings of Ab, AAB, CWL, 
Steiner inconsitent with HPB.

Take the Mars/Mercury quarrel between HPB and Sinnett. Besant, Leadbeater 
and today John Algeo supported APS. When in 1923 the ML came out, Leadbeater 
shouted: "This damned book!" and the would-be Occultists were shocked that 
many things were quite different from that what they have taught until then. 
But in an editorial in The Theosophist around 1924 Mrs Besant found a clever 
explanation: Both teachings of Mars/Mercury are right - HPB gave the 
teachings from the one side, she from the other! Clever, but not consistent.
Mars and Mercury cannot belong to the Earth chain and at the same time 
belong to their own chain. Also the chain of the seven Holy Planets cannot 
be meant. So I conclude that Mrs Besant - the Herold of the Christ - was not 
man enough to confess a mistake and hoped the stupid sheep will never see 
this cover up.
Frank


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 3:06 AM
Subject: Theos-World Frank on "dead letter-interpretations"


Frank,

You write:

"So, we have the ironically (if not tragically)
situation that the dead-letter interpreters of
HPB, who misunderstood her (until today?), claim
they follow HPB, although HPB always fighted
against dead letter-interpretations."

But a SIMILAR kind of argument has also been
used by many students of Bailey or Leadbeater, etc...

I have had correspondence with several students of
Leadbeater who say I just don't have the
necessary "understanding." If I did, I would see
things differently about Leadbeater's teachings.

Or one student of Bailey said Nicholas Weeks who
wrote an article on Bailey just didn't have the
"intuition" to see that Bailey and her teachings
were a natural development of Blavatsky and her
teachings. Or that some of Cleather/Crump objections
to Bailey were merely "legalistic"....

And you use the "dead letter-interpretations"
argument to support your view about GdeP.

Interesting....

Daniel












Yahoo! Groups Links