Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00099)

According to Brenda S. Tucker:
>
> > I am reasonably sure that Paul has stated that he believes that Adepts
> >exist; he just does not believe that Blavatsky was a student of them.
> >
> > Bart Lidofsky

Oops, Bart, not quite right on either count. Blavatsky most
definitely was a student of adepts, which is something even my
strongest opponents will admit my work establishes,
given the way I define it. That is, persons who have advanced understanding
and status within a particular spiritual tradition and who are recognized
as experts. That's an operational, observable definition, and you can find
HPB in teacher/student or colleague relationships with many of such people--
as I did. But the *inner* qualities of adeptship are not observable
in historical records or even face to face, and must remain
therefore bracketed as outside the range of inquiry. Being
unable to know of the spiritual stature or psychic abilities of
anyone through historical research, that whole side of things
is ignored. Do I believe that HPB was a student of adepts?
No, I KNOW that she was. Do I believe that there are
spiritually advanced beings with paranormal abilities? Yes,
very much so. Do I believe that the adepts (as defined by
observable criteria) from whom HPB learned had such abilities
and spiritual status? Here I am an agnostic, not disbelieving
or believing but remaining open-minded.
>
> He also may be questioning whether there is really a "new and relevant"
> message in theosophy or is it rather a fresh conglomeration of ancient
> teachings.

That in itself is new and relevant.

 Perhaps he really doesn't feel a need for the teachings here and
> maybe this is why he is asking "Were they really masters?" But then we have
> to allow that some people are really more students of history rather than
> trying to "attain liberation, enlightenment, or nirvana."

And some are both.