Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00568)

>>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,
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
> You can't blame HPB for the problems that her students
>make.
>

You missed my point. I am not blaming HPB at all. The problem
is that when esoteric truth is put into words it becomes exoteric
mind-knowledge. HPB knew this, and warned us about it but
too many folks tend to take the written word for Gospel.

> IMO her writings are intended to make us think, she did
>not set out
> to do our thinking for us.
>

Agreed up to a point. She did not deliberately write her
material in such a way as to make us think. It just always
comes out that way when you try to put it into words, and
HPB was not all that adept at English (she admitted this).

> Theosophy, she claims, is a historical record. She (and
>Masters)
> provide therein not only "doctrine," but the paths to
>verification.
>

I disagree with this one for the most part. "Paths to
verification" are techniques, and the only ones that she
would ever agree to are karma, jnana, and raja yogas,
and altrusim. All of these are good stuff, but the quicker
paths (which she herself had used) were considered
too danagerous for the average person. I am not the
only critic of Theosophy who feels that it is very heavy
on theory and light on technique.

> I 'harp' on coherency and consistency -- as a whole,
>Each statement
> con be found to intermesh with others -- sometimes it
>takes time to
> prove this to one's self. Dal.
>

This happens when we have a reasonably complete workable
"system." And I agree that Theosophy, for the most part, has this.

Jerry S.