Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00315)

> Yet many have told me over the years that CWL's writings have been 
a deeply spiritual inspiration to them. So, perhaps one's pseudo
> theosophy is real theosophy to another. 

PL: I did not sat that his writings were not, except for one or two. 
On the whole both CWL and AB's books IMHO are quite sound for 
aspirants.

> Their personal core material, or the core material or their
> organization? My experience has been that Theosophists are 
generally very eclectic in their reading, 

PL: the core material of their organization.

> PL: No, I am not, I have had the same cross section as you. 
However, those I have spoken with about the anti AAB sentiment, who 
know something about it, dont understand its roots or can explain 
how it all started with any reason.

JHE: Outside of AAB's account, which I have read, what have you been 
able to document that these people missed? 

PL: I have already stated this several times. They do not understand 
the politics which led to the anti AAB sentiment over the years. 
Therefore they have never bothered to open up those books and decide 
for themselves because they have taken the word of other biased TS 
members.
What have you found in the form of source documents? 
PL: None, have not been looking for any.

JHE: I'm afraid that this is the problem with channeled material. 
Its actual source will always be in question, thus raising questions 
that give rise to criticisms. 

PL: One could say the same about our very mediumistic HPB who had 
several Masters it is said, working through her. But your immediate 
use of the phrase 'channelled' material conjures up the lower 
psychic medium who works through the astral plane/body only - quite 
often in trance. The quality of the material is usually immediately 
recognizable as of low calibre, for instance Clare Prophet.
AAB worked consciously on the mental plane. She could not have 
possibly known much of what DK gave her, despite the fact that she 
was a solid student of the SD. That material is easily recognisable 
for its *quality* by the intuitive student.

JHE: This brings me to an observation I made some years ago
> concerning an obvious difference between HPB's writings and those 
based upon a channeled authority (Like AAB's) or through psychic 
revelation(like CWL's). 

PL: Again you are making an assumption that AAB is a 'channel' - 
please define your terms.

JHE: In HPB's books, one would be hard put to find a single point 
she makes, or a single page of her writings that is not referenced 
to some *source* scientific or philosophical work, or religious 
scripture. 

PL: Oh yeah? What about the skeleton of the SD? The stanzas of Dzyan 
are not checkable, unless you have the ear of an abbott of a certain 
monastery. The rest is excellent comparative religion and occultism.

JHE:My point is this--whatever one may make of HPB's ideas or how 
she may have acquired them, one is able to compare them to the 
learned literature of the day. 

PL: Yes, and this is precisely it. The Masters through HPB made 
built the foundation of this three-fold teaching, and elaborated 
through DK/AAB at the next phase. There was no need to duplicate the 
work already performed by HPB. We are told that a third phase is due 
to come through some disciple early this century. I wonder if 
whoever has that unenviable task will be vilified by theosphists and 
Baileyites alike? (grin)


JHE:I have heard it often said that DK dictated much of the SD. 
What is your evidence for this? 

PL: Obviously difficult to 'prove', it is a subjective realisation 
that only comes when one has studied both lots of material, for 
instance the SD and Cosmic Fire. Those who have not done this in 
depth, or plumbed the original and new stanzas of Dzyan just will 
never know this. Therefore they are in no position to criticise 
unless they have undertaken a deep and critical look at the 
material. Treatise on Cosmic Fire (TCF) is 1,367 pages, not the 
lightest of bedtime reading, but neither is the SD