Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00241)

> From: aabhpb <aabhpb@yahoo.com.au> [mailto:aabhpb@yahoo.com.au]

Lindsay:
> Whoops - sent it to you personally be mistake - and other responses
> to some others of you. Feel free to redirect them back to this
> discussion.
> You are a man of many assumptions - you are now assuming that I
> quit! dangly bit of bait, sigh. OK, I'll bite. Tempting as it is to
> bail out as I have other probably more productive things to do, I am
> willing to snort at the trough with you for a little longer...

Neither bait nor assumption on my part at all. Here is what I read in the
Mailer Demon:

"Your message was rejected by mx1.mail.yahoo.com for the following reason:
delivery error: dd Sorry your message to aabhpb@yahoo.com.au cannot be
delivered. This account has been disabled or discontinued [#102]. -
mta561.mail.yahoo.com"


> NW>So I guess preaching is PL's milieu, not
> >discussion with non-residents of the Baileywick.

> PL:Reasoned dialogue with unreasonable declarations?
> I repeat:
> > PL: So who decides or has decided what teaching does not'share the
> KEYor BASIC tenets of HPB & her Gurus' - what great authority, TS or
> > > otherwise claimed it thus?

Authority you say? I thought the Aquarian keynote was individual freedom from
such Picean strictures? I gave a few reasons and a little evidence in the
article. You declared (based on clairvoyance, perhaps) I knew nothing or was
prejudiced or confused etc. In short you only repeat or paraphrase notions
from those silly Blue Books.

One of the main reasons for writing "Theosophy's Shadow" was to provide a
guideline or two on how to critically examine the two sets of teachings.
Since most devotees of any persuasion are not capable of self-criticism, much
less criticism of their own beliefs, philosophy, religion etc.; they ( and so
far, you) can only see the article as a mean-spirited attack.


> > 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.

Talk about "unreasonable declarations" - yipes!