Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00524)

>
>I would not call HPB and ML "skimpy" -- to me the statements
>there are the basis from which we can start. Would you seriously
>call either ISIS or the S D "skimpy "

Then how about vague? or "subject to a whole lot of interpretation?"
The point I was trying to make, Dallas, is that if HPB's writings were
as complete and far-reaching as you seem to think they are, then
please explain to me why the TS split into so many pieces over the
years, and how her basic teachings such as Root Races, Planes,
and Globes, are so confusing and have been explained by writers
in so many diverse ways. Why do students argue over doctrine
here on the Internet? I submit that the reason is that she left a lot
of room to wiggle around in (maybe on purpose?) and gave us a
lot of sketchy ideas but little real details. If she really was initiated
into Tibetan Buddhism, then her teachings should jive reasonably
well with the slew of new books available today by Tibetans. They
do in some areas, but not in others. Tibetans talk about realms
(planes) and bodies/principles (rainbow body, dream body,
bardo body, etc) but no word so far on Root Races or Globes
or planetary chains.

Jerry S.