Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00712)

Eldon wrote: <<For an individual's study, it is important 
to know what H.P. Blavatsky and the Mahatma Letters 
says. One needs to know these ideas so that they can be 
compared to what one's favorite secondary authors, like, 
say, what C.W. Leadbeater, Robert Crosby, or James 
Long may say. In order to sort out one's thinking, one 
needs to see and somehow explain any apparent 
differences. If Blavatsky says one thing, for instance, and
Leadbeater another, why is this so? Did Leadbeater 
misunderstand an idea, misperceive things psychically, or 
did he know better and have direct personal experience 
that was more direct and real than Blavatsky's 
intellectual training? Were both wrong? Or do both
contrasting ideas serve as a paradox that leads one into a 
deeper insight that is not readily found in either writing 
when standing by itself?>>

While there may be much sense/relevance in what you 
wrote in that post, Eldon, I'm wondering if there's a 
substantially less dual perspective (as per atma-buddhi?) 
from which such "sense making" and our dualistic world 
might seem, in comparison, as if they were the twitterings 
of birds . . . Not that . . .

Speculatively,
Mauri