Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00550)

In the ongoing and probably interminable discussion about who is
and is not a genuine continuation of the effort started by HPB,
we cannot get off the ground because no criteria for such
judgments are shared. Some perspectives as I understand them:

1. Doctrinal details. Dallas and Daniel argue consistently that
the primary concern for anyone asking the question "who are HPB's
real successors, if any?" should focus on detailed continuity of
teachings.

2. Subjective validation. Govert and Brenda, if I understand
them rightly, are saying essentially "I feel the same inner
sensations when reading the Ballards or Prophet that I feel when
reading HPB, and this persuades me that there is a continuity of
of effort." It seems that admirers of Krishnamurti who also like
HPB turn to the same kind of subjectivity.

3. Objective criteria. My position is that who continues HPB's
effort should be judged according to whether or not they
performed the same roles in synthesizing East-West wisdom and
popularizing formerly esoteric teachings. Gurdjieff looks like
the best match to me, having traveled to many of the same places
as HPB and giving teachings which although not in detailed accord
with hers are easily seen as complementary and compatible.

Are there more options I'm not considering? Seems as if the
Baileyites and Anthroposophists and Leadbeaterians would rest mainly on #2
if trying to claim continuity with HPB. The Pasadena tradition would point
to #1, as would ULT partisans. My work on Cayce is likely to get
ARE folks to recognize their Theosophical lineage more than they
now do, but that would seem to combine all three criteria since
Cayce both echoes HPB, evokes the same recognition
feelings in some folks, and has played a role in history that
built upon what she had done before him.

Thoughts, corrections, tangents, anyone?

PJ