Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00215)

Below is the last note I rcvd privately from Philip Lindsay.

My private response to him said I saw no reason to keep forwarding his notes
to Theos-talk, so I gave him the Theos-talk address so he could do it himself.
I also said I would respond to the note below, privately or publicly, as he
wished. However that note of mine bounced and the Mailer Demon said the Yahoo
account had been closed down. So I guess preaching is PL's milieu, not
discussion with non-residents of the Baileywick.

But he can have the last word -- written below.

Fare Thee Well,

Nicholas


From: <aabhpb@yahoo.com.au>
To: "Nick Weeks" <nick.weeks@worldnet.att.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Pseudo-theosophy of AAB & CWL

NW:
> > Your second sentence must be rhetorical, since you continue
> writing as if your
> > assumption about pseudo-theosophy is correct. It is not. Pseudo-
> theosophy is
> > whatever teaching professes to be based on, and share the KEY or
> BASIC tenets
> > of HPB & her Gurus, but does not. Therefore Crosbie, Wadia,
> Tingley, Purucker
> > for example, do share these keynotes of original Theosophy and to
> my mind are
> > real Theosophists. Absolute fidelity to each and every teaching
> that HPB gave
> > is not needed. But one must have a notion of which teachings are
> basic &
> > vital and which are not.

PL:
> So who decides or has decided what teaching does not'share the KEY
> or BASIC tenets of HPB & her Gurus' - what great authority, TS or
> otherwise claimed it thus?
>
> It seems a minority group within the TS (probably the ES) , who have
> an undue influence, deem it so.

NW:
> >If your DK is same as HPB's DK why are his MAIN
> >teachings opposed to the real Brothers teachings?


PL:
> Again you make the assumption that you know who the 'real brothers'
> teachings are. Your 'stuff and nonsense' remark is just a cheap
> provocation and an insult to those very Brothers you claim to
> recognise. It is you who have distorted BASIC theosophy by your
> inability to plumb the new teachings and thereby retard its progress.
>
> But as with most fundamentalists, I can see dialogue is futile...