Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00068)

Hi Terrie,

Like you, I've always recoiled from most of the self-described 
Theosophical successors to HPB. You wrote:
> 
> Over the years I've probably seen most of their titles, and, it is 
> always the same - I pick up the book, check the table of contents, 
> scan a few chapters for relative infos AND within a few minutes at 
> most I always just wanna put those books down.
> 
> A.A.B's materials seem kind of religious to me and it is this 
feeling of her prescribing one's "daily life" that I find grating. 
And, Leadbeater, he creeps me out.

Ditto, ditto. Which doesn't mean that we are both unbiased observers 
and those are objective assessments, but rather than the biases in 
Bailey and Leadbeater are flagrant and don't fit well with our own.

I just hear that guy's name and I feel 
> ucky! Helena Roerich, really, I never get passed her photos, she 
> reminds me of the lady DeVille for 101 dalmations - she freaks me 
> out! And, I always think: "Man! I wouln't wanna run into her on a 
> dark road at night"! 

Never saw her pictures, share the "creeped out" feeling from the 
writings. BUT--

Olcott, I never know who he is, and, I'm never 
> sure what he's actually saying or talking about. 

Many including myself find his authorial voice relaxed and engaging, 
clear and understandable. After a few readings one begins to notice 
the spin-doctor aspect, but still he's fun to read and perhaps you 
haven't given him enough of a chance.

Krishnamurti, well, 
> that whole situation just makes me too sad.
> 
I would agree that the situation surrounding him inspires sadness, 
but hardly think that a reason to avoid reading about it. After all, 
the Theosophical motto is "no religion [dharma] higher than truth" 
and Krishnamurti is the heart of 20th century Theosophical 
experience. Not "no religion higher than what makes me feel 
comfortable."

> The thing I like about HPB's works is that there is clear minded 
and relative information on each and every page. She did very well 
> combine/solidify/cross-correlate maths, philosophy, mythology, 
> science, language, history and symbol. These are the subjects that 
> are of interest to me AND I am not much interested in 
> agendas/pursuits bent of another nature of understanding nor single 
> focus/insight or inclination. I think/feel that HPB's materials 
are a worldly, enlightening and unbias resourse

While regarding HPB's writings as vastly superior to those other 
authors you name, I would caution anyone against proclaiming what 
rings their personal chimes as therefore being an "unbiased 
resource." 

AND that what she has 
> written is in fact a tremendous accumulation of reason and wisdom 
AND quite a respectable gift to have accomplished/offered on up - 
it's an inspiration, even today. So, it's useful and it's practical, 
abiding as value does AND when I look in her eyes I see a seeker of 
truth AND I feel wisdom, trial and love. When I read her works I 
see/feel understanding and experience AND the effort/search to be as 
open and honest, thorough and direct as one can possibly be. 
> 
> Sincerely,

I can identify with that sentiment, but would say "Yes, and..."
that's not the only effort observable in her writings. Nor are the 
other efforts necessarily compatible with that effort. If you 
perceive only someone trying to be as open and honest and direct as 
possible, while others perceive only one of the biggest liars in 
history, maybe that deserves to be explored beyond the either/or 
dichotomy that so many Theosophists and skeptics find so satisfying.

But mainly I just want to issue a caution against the "I like it, I 
agree with it, therefore it's unbiased" line of thought. All readers 
have biases and they evaluate books according to them. All authors 
have biases which can be either accurately perceived, misperceived, 
or unperceived by their readers.

Cheers,

Paul

PS-- Purucker is worth checking out if you haven't yet.