Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00118)

I appreciate your concordance with my speculations, Mauri. Fact is, every 
judgment about the motives of someone else has to be tentative, since none of 
us can know everything about them or even a small fraction of who they really 
are -- especially from an assessment of what they say about themselves. The 
only thing I might add, in such a case, is that perhaps, you should 
substitute for your three dots below, "I think I know what I'm talking 
about." That might make it easier for us to figure out where you are coming 
from. (Tentatively speaking, that is, since we can't be sure anyone else is 
as perceptive or insightful as we are. ;-)

HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR 
(along with everyone else who reads this), 

LHM

In a message dated 12/31/02 11:51:42 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Leon wrote (to BAG): <<As for "real women" I was just 
>using that term (facetiously again, for which I ask your 
>pardon) as a generality referring to any woman, YY, XY 
>or otherwise, who took on the role of exposing what was 
>formerly, male restricted esoteric knowledge within most 
>highly organized religious orders. The only speculation 
>implied by that, of a psychological nature, was the 
>possible inference that you may have a religious bias 
>(considering both your Hindu and Catholic attachments) 
>against HPB personally and, by reflection, "theosophy" 
>itself, due to its public exposure by her of the formerly 
>secret esoteric teachings of the highest orders of those 
>religions. I might also add, as another psychologically 
>sensitive point, HPB's evident disdain for the exoteric 
>theological teachings of Catholicism, and those Hindu 
>sects that worship a personal God, or practice Tantric sex. 
>>>
>
>Leon (if you're reading this) I tend to agree with you 
>there, having had similar, if somewhat tentative assesments,
>thoughts about where BAG might be coming from. Not that ...
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri