Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00194)

--- bri_mue <bri_mue@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But first Blavatsky wrote face saving to Hartmann:
> „Arrived at Bombay, 
> we had to drop Western and take to Eastern
> Rosicrucianism."
> Of course there wasn't such a thing as „Eastern
> Rosicrucianism" it is an 
> invented term

This seems to be the key statement here. Giving up
western Rosicrucianism is an explicit statement that
she made the break with Randolph shortly after
arriving in Bombay. That establishes the time of the
break more precisely than was possible before, and
implies what the reasons for that break might have
consisted of.

It also makes clear why she dropped the Randolph
oriented theory of the post mortem soul going through
purifications and adopted the Eastern view, heretofore
dismissed, of the soul reincarnating into different
bodies. Altogether I would say that is a very
important and revealing passage,

I also would like to say again that there is nothing
wrong with her changing her mind, IMHO, and that there
is no good reason for her apologists to obfuscate this
or try to distract attention from it. It is simply a
part of the story, and an important incident in the
evolution of the ideas we are discussing.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/