Theos-Talk Archives (August 1997 Message tt00048)

Hi
Dallas:Hi too.

Well, some of the stuff i said, maybe i wasn't clear, i tried to
say that NOT that Blavatsky didn't understand what the Mahatmas
told her (She was wise) but you have to understand her 19 century
point of view; as us, she taught that some stuff phrofetizised
was some odd true, i think very difficult to believe. But she
believe. is like in her era, if she told of the voyages to mars
and stuff modern like that, noone could believe her!!

Is the same for me. is difficult to believe. is not that i am
some sort of a freak fanatic of something like that.

I DO believe in things not coomonly seen , like chakras and auras
, and stuff like that. Also i believe in some (Many of the
stuff) telled by Blavatsky of the basis of theosophy. is not
that i'm a sheep eating it all, but also i'm not a pure
esceptical scientist. is just that my logical mind thinks it's
more logical and easy believing that Our ancestors (Primitive
man, like Homo erectus and Nehandertal) are more capable of
holding a soul (The monad, if you like to use the accurate term)
than a "wierd floating vapor" or "etheric man" that noone else
than the masters has seen, and probably (Even if they were
clairvoyant, as i think they did) maybe a result of a bad
observation. maybe they only saw the Etherical body ,but not the
physical.There has to be a physical body holding it, i believe.

That was my main reclaim to that. (And my only one, i think) I
read your letter, but i think i couldn't understand much what you
said. my english is not well (I write from Mexico)and you use
very complex and some bit redundant terms.

Anyway, thanks for your letter, really, i do not know much, that
is the only thing i can be sure about.

I'll keep what you said in mind. i'm not a sheep, but also i'm
not an esceptical brainy aspirant to square scientist.