Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00424)

Daniel wrote:

>But without viewing HPB as
>the "messiah
>of Theosophy" and her works as "the bibles of Theosophy", I certainly
>think
>HPB's works are worthy of reading and studying.

I certainly agree.  However, I was most curious about whether one could be a
Theosophist without ever having read HPB.  You seem to to be implying -
although I could be interpreting you quite wrongly - that one cannot; HPB
and Theosophy go hand-in-hand.  No?

I've heard from the infamous "they" that there are "Theosophists" and
"theosophists."  What, in your opinion, is the difference, if you perceive
one?

>I
>have not
>found the study of HPB's writings in anyway "confining" or "limiting".

HPB's intolerance of Christianity or other such groups that disagree with
her is what I deem "confining" or "limiting."

>And I think Dallas' method of collating excerpts from her various
>writings
>is another good approach.  I know that several people on Theos-L have
>been irritated by his citations.

One of the reasons that Dallas' or any other person relying mainly on
citations for discussion is considered 'irritating' is that one never knows
if the person is simply reciting what he/she has read or heard, or is truly
speaking from the inner self.  Is a person who provides mostly responses
jammed full of citations being genuine?  It almost seems a form of keeping
distance, and sometimes even height, between the the one who cites and
his/her audience.

>I have no idea if the "viewpoint" you write about is really "prominent
>in the
>TSA" or not.

I left the TSA due to this viewpoint seemingly (to me) evident in John
Algeo's writings.

>Could not one's critcisms be based on motivations other than the one
>you ascribe?  I have outlined my criticisms of Paul's views in my
>HOUSE OF CARDS and have given in detail the reasons for those criticisms
>and have given chapter and verse.

I have read your HOUSE OF CARDS and Paul's TMR.  And yes, I do think the
motivations you have toward Paul's writings could and does encompass other
reasons than the sacredness of HPB - remember my post regarding the karmic
link you and Paul seem to be locked in?  Or did you chuck that one in the
rubbish bin?  Hmmmm?

>Paul Johnson's wriings on HPB are not the
>only writings I have criticized.  For example, see my critique of
>Jean Overton Fuller's biography in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY.
>I have also criticized some of the findings of Boris de Zirkoff and
>Geoffrey Barborka. [snip] Is
>this
>so terrible and bad?

I'm impressed!  I'm all for those who feel it is their job to tell others
what is wrong with them - I, myself, excel in this field and, on occasion,
have some glorious fun.  'Course, you and I both recognize that, should we
be in error of judgment and cause unnecessary pain - we will ultimately be
the ones who "pay."

"Karma" is a bit of a party pooper.

>One more thing and I will shut up.

You're too easy!  Betcha one cyber-dollar that you'll find it impossible to
remain true to that statement.


Kym