Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00100)

Nicholas Weeks wrote:
>Trained for what is the key. My guess is that she, Helena Petrovna, was
>unfit for adeptship (as KH or M wrote) while the inner HPB was an
>Initiate.

Appreciated you are only guessing, but are you able to explain further what
you mean?  If the inner HPB was an Initiate (which is rather different to
being an Adept, in the sense that an Adept is an Initiate, but an Initiate
is not necessarily an Adept), it is strange your saying that Helena Petrovna
(the outer HPB) was unfit for adeptship (can you remember which letter this
was?)  It suggests the inner HPB could be an Initiate, and the outer HPB an
Adept.

  So Helena's training was mostly on inner preparation for being
>an instrument for the inner Initate or Adepts to write, teach and inspire
>through.  The spiritual practices of the Buddhist path or Buddhist
>philosophy were of little practical use, I'm guessing, for her particular
>mission in that incarnation of Helena.

As regards your first sentence, does anyone have anything further or
different to offer?  Is this in fact how we see HPBs training?

Regading the latter sentence: Christmas Humphreys formed the Buddhist
Society in England, as he understood that HPB had said, for those who were
unable to grasp or understand Theosophy, Buddhism was the next best thing.
In many of his Buddhist books he "prefaces" them with mentioning HPB and
Theosophy.  So yes, the spiritual practices of the Buddhist path or Buddhist
philosophy would have been of little use (as such) to someone of HPBs, as of
the Mahatmas, stature.  The first few pages of the "Introductory" of the SD
you may find of interest in this matter.

Tony