Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00189)

>At 12:09 AM 3/20/98 +0100, you wrote:
>>This shows again the old saying that mediums have nothing new to
>>offer. But it raises two questions:
>>1. Is this "St. Germain" the same person that we know of as the
Count
>>de St. Germain (Theos. Gloss. 308)?
>>2. Since when has theosophy anything to do with "channeling"?
>>Frank
>
>Frank,
>
>HPB was a medium. And when Dora Kunz teaches healing she uses
channeling.
>
>St. Germain is behind the founding of a great movement this century
called
>the I AM Temple.
>
>We are here to receive them. What's wrong with that?
>
>Brenda

Dear Brenda,
thank you very much for information. It is new for me that HPB was a
medium. Do you discreminate between
HPB and H.P. Blavatsky? What are your proofs that she was a medium? We
have her many own statements
at eyewitnesses (ie. WQJ) that he never ever acted as a medium and
never held a seance. How do you
understand the word medium? Perhaps you have an interpretation
different from the common theosophical
nomenclatura?
Information that St. Germain is working in the I AM Temple is
interesting. Well, is he the same person that
HPB is refering to? I have not much knwoledge about the I AM. Is their
St. Germain a kind of higher chela/Adept/Mahatma? If so, can any
interesting follower receive his messages? Are his messages containing
really news, or were only common places used of esoteric facts largly
known since the Theosophic
Renaissance in the last quarter of the 19.th century?
What do you mean when you say that Dora Kunz "teaches healing"? Is
this a mental technique like the
Christian Scientists use? Do you understand "channeling" in the same
way as mediumship? If so, did then
HPB also channeling?
Thank you much in advance.
Frank

>
>