Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00451)

>
>What I say is that there not a clear coherency between those
>speculations and the "core TEACHINGS."
>

Dallas, here you are doing the same thing again. You may, in fact,
be right. All I wanted (and still want) is an example or two of what
you mean here. This seems to me to be a scathing indictment
of post-HPB writers, which I personally have not noticed (obviously
I am disregarding the Mars material of CWL) but then again I
have not read all of them. I find, for example, a great deal of
coherency with Judge, de Purucker, and Long.

>
>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
>also.
>

I agree with you on this point, certainly. I suppose the Big Question
is whether or not post-HPB writings are "theosophy?"

Jerry S.