Theos-Talk Archives (October 2001 Message tt00476)

Dear Joe:

It depends on the nature of the TEACHER. He is either the HIGHER
SELF (a "ray" of the UNIVERSAL DIVINE SPIRIT -- ATMAN) or the
animal-human self that is not fully a reflection of the DIVINE
EGO. In which case those teachings are distorted.

We, who are the recipients of advice (see TRANSACTIONS OF THE
BLAVATSKY LODGE, pp 66-76) from the HIGHER SELF, nightly, have to
purify the brain-mind here and now so as to receive the impact of
those nightly conferences and remember them.

That's how I see it.

Best wishes,

Dallas

Also see attached Post to Peter on this.

===================================
]

-----Original Message-----
From: Enter your name here [mailto:mb1234
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 2:52 PM
To:
Subject: Re: TS, ULT, Krishnamurti & Besant

As soon as the teacher becomes more important than the teachings,
then the
whole point is missed, I believe !



----- Original Message -----
From: J F
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 11:41 AM
Subject: [ Re: TS, ULT, Krishnamurti & Besant


> Thank you. These views are rational, at least within the
"Theosophical"
> context. Blavatsky must be acknowledged for her being at the
head of the
> modern movement, and other teachings, if they're to be called
"Theosophy"
> must be compared with the writings of Blavatsky, Subba Row, and
the
> Mahatma's. I too agree with the comments about others who
claim that
their
> teachings are a continuation of Blavatsky. All too often the
doctrines
> expounded are based on assertions on the part of the "teacher"
and all
> questioning, examination and critical thought are discouraged.
>
> Joe
>