Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00744)

Dr. A.M.Bain wrote:

> That may have been her intention. It hasn't happened, and HPB herself
> has become a source of dead-letter interpretation.

Daniel Caldwell comments:

No doubt, *some* have made HPB herself "a source of dead-letter
interpretation".

But at the same time, many have not taken the time and effort
to read and study what HPB herself actually wrote.  In order to
understand and appreciate ANY author, one must attempt to
set aside one's own "beliefs and disbeliefs" and really *listen*
to what the author is attempting to convey.  It is not a matter
of believing or disbelieving, accepting or rejecting but it is
a matter of trying to UNDERSTAND what the author is writing about.
In the case of HPB, one also needs to read enough
of her writings in order to understand what she is trying to convey
through the medium of words, i.e. what are the "ideas", "concepts"
and "themes" that she is writing about.  Many students of Theosophy
have only superficially read some of her writings and have opted
to read other or more "simplified" presentations of Theosophy.  Nothing
is necessarily wrong with the latter approach but others prefer to
read what HPB actually wrote and taught.  And I don't think that makes
these students automatically "fundamentalists" and "dead-letter"
interpreters.  *It is far too easy to label people and put them in this
or
that category.*

No doubt, HPB's writings give us only a partial understanding of
THEOSOPHIA.  But how many of us have fully appreciated what she
has given?? And to those who claim she gave only so much, one might
say:  "Well, give us what she didn't give, show us more. . . ."

On second thought, what is the *real* meaning of Dr. Bain's statement?

>HPB herself has become a source of dead-letter interpretation.

We may all agree with this general but vague statement.  But does anyone
have good CONCRETE examples to illustrate the point? DETAILS are really
important. . . .