Re:The "Eternal Present: and KARMA
Apr 21, 1998 03:14 PM
by Dallas TenBroeck
April 21st 1998
To "convince" you ? I wouldn't try -- any more than I would try
to convince anyone. Ideas can be advanced. Their considerations
and use is entirely a matter of the effort of the recipient.
I am not begging the issue as to whether "others" who followed
HPB "expanded or amplified" what she had to offer.
What I say is that there not a clear coherency between those
speculations and the "core TEACHINGS."
Again it is a question of which "authorities are going to be
placed in the bull-ring. "Authorities" don't help.
We all speculate, and as we wait and watch to see if our
speculations are right or wrong, or need modification, we think.
Classifications are fine, it they assist in clearing the mind and
establishing clearly the relations ships between apparently
separate situations, whether thee be of place, of time, or of
The thing that had me querying is that HPB was apparently made
responsible for some later writer's speculations, which he took
the risk of putting into print. And, in my experience, all that
is printed is not necessarily true. And I am sure you know this
So HPB did not say this, nor apparently did the Masters, (as they
declared that they co-authored the S D -- See certificates given
to Dr. Hubbe-Schleiden reprinted in PATH, Vol. 8, pp 1-3 --
Thanks for the clarification. Dallas
>From: "Jerry Schueler" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 1:35 PM
>Subject: Re:The "Eternal Present: and KARMA
>>This statement was a conclusion that either G de P or AB/CWL
>>arrived at after her death from their own study and surmises.
>>Thank you. I was pretty sure that that conclusion was not
>Dallas, this does not invalidate the idea.
No, But it does not lead me to a greater understanding, unless
one spends time decIphering what is meant. DAL
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application