Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00001)

Following up Pam's comments, it seems to me that there are
multiple HPBs up there in egregoreland, being fed by people with
quite different approaches.  I speak from personal acquaintance
with several of them.  Each of the Theosophical groups has
constructed its own version of HPB, and is now sustained by
psychic interaction with their self-constructed simulacrum rather
than with the real woman.  Indeed, if the real woman turns out to
conflict with the favored egregore, she will be vigorously
rejected by some adherents of the latter.

Starting out with the ULT version of HPB, I would say she is a
stern, judgmental, authoritarian figure filled with righteous
indignation.  The TSA version is quite different, a broadly
tolerant, fun-loving adventurous type full of hope and
inspiration.  The Pasadena HPB is rather more scholarly and less
adventuresome than the Adyar version, but not quite the rigidly
orthodox figure of ULT perception.  In short, it seems to me that
the same is true of HPB as of Jesus.  Each group or generation
comes up with a version that reflects its own character.

That worked OK in the days when Theosophists were quite
segregated.  But now, with networking and cyberspace, we have all
these competing HPBs slugging it out in various ways, exacerbated
by historical perspectives that produce several new HPBs: my
version, Godwin's, Washington's, Carlson's all showing up in this
decade.  Rather comparable to all the competing versions of Jesus
found in the new literature about his historical identity, added
to all the existing Jesuses of the churches or other belief
systems.

The healthy adaptation to this situation would be an open
acceptance of diversity and a commitment to civil, indeed cordial
discourse within and beyond the Theosophical movement.  But these do not
seem to be times in which healthy adaptation to the contemporary
situation is in the cards.  Maybe next millennium?

Cheers,
Paul