Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00247)

> PL: You say 'I thought the Aquarian keynote was individual freedom
> from such Picean strictures?' - yes agreed, but you and some in the
> TS hide behind the glamour of HPB's authority, compounding that with
> personal declarations and assumptions. I bow down to HPB's 'author-
> ity' but also recognise other teachers or 'author-ities'.

Have you even read my earlier pt. 2 & pt. 3 postings regarding
pseudo-theosophy? You seem to have it fixed in your mind that I am a long
time TS member "glamorized" by authority. This is an unwarrented assumption on
your part Philip. What evidence do you have? In point of fact I have been a
philo-theosophist for around 35 years and never a member of any TS; until
about 2 years ago when I joined the TS in the Judge-Tingley-Purucker lineage.

Here is a quote from pt. 3 of my earlier post:

"The assumption that I know little and/or prejudiced against AAB is mistaken.
Perhaps I should have mentioned my background in the article. For the record
I was a member of the Arcane School & Arcana Workshops for 15 years. Thus I
was a close scrutinizer & devotee of AAB/CWL BEFORE I began to learn
something about original Theosophy of HPB. I have read, studied, meditated,
invoked, been involved in group work & served the Plan starting from around
1970."

> > 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:
> Well if its not mean spirited, it primariy lacks discrimination and
> is coloured by assumptions, biases, attachments and theosophical
> fundamentalist conditioning. As a result one can rationalise white
> as black and vice versa.

We do seem to have a "failure to communicate" going on here. My notion of
criticism of the written teachings of AAB involves actually comparing the
words written by HPB & AAB and then pondering on the meaning of any
significant differences. My history of saturation in AAB for 15-20 years
BEFORE HPB would suggest, if there is any bias, that it would be AGAINST HPB.
And so it was for many years. I simply could not fathom the notion of real
contradiction. The Tibetan (as I thought of him then) said there was no
conflict, he is a Master who knows, ergo - case closed.

Is any of this getting through Philip?