Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00146)

Friends,  
Since this writer seems to be talking to the group in general, I thought I'd 
do the same thing while also, where approriate, switch to talking directly to 
the writer.  

In a message dated 03/06/03 4:19:22 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:

>Hi, "I am immortal" is a thought. To THINK this breaks material down in
>such a way that one cannot fully BE, as this kind of thinking creates a
>reference point or remainder which is always in relationship to the 
psychological
>complex of ones ordinary reactive self (personality) which has been formed
>and conditioned by life or nature. In my opinion this kind of talk is a
>form of ignorance and no person of real understanding would talk in this
>way, except if it were time -appropriate in relationship to the realization
>of a specific aim and in this served a function, but maybe I am wrong.

You may be right if you think this is what theosophists mean when they talk 
about immortality. But, I think most of your assumptions as well as your 
assertions are wrong. Mainly because, judging from all your writings, I 
don't think you have any real understanding of theosophy or its objects. In 
effect, all you seem to be saying is that we should abandon the 2nd and 3rd 
object of the movement, forget about reincarnation and karma, and put 
ourselves into your hands and you will lead us like sheep to the "promised 
land," so to speak -- where we can fully "BE" in our "physical nature." 
(Whatever that means.)  

Sounds like dyed in the wool priest crafty materialism to me. And, it sure 
isn't theosophy. So, what is it doing here? I thought this was a forum to 
discuss theosophy as it really is. Besides, since when did theosophy teach 
that we should drag the spirit down to the physical level? I thought it 
taught just the opposite. Also, how can we be forced to follow your path as 
the only way to reach enlightenment and achieve the nucleus of universal 
brotherhood, when you keep saying that you think Krishnamurti, who denied the 
possibility of a group path and said there is no path, except the one we each 
can find within our own life, was teaching a correct version of theosophy? 
(Maybe you should read the comments on this subject I made to Steve 
recently.) But, then you already said that everything I say goes in one ear 
and out the other -- so I don't expect such truths will penetrate too 
deeply.:-)

Empty talk with vague implications of some profound knowledge is easy. But 
teachings others what they have to know to discriminate between the real and 
the unreal is very difficult. One must be far more direct and honest -- with 
an entirely altruistic desire solely to "help and teach others." Self desire 
for one's personal enlightenment is still the same old unresolved greed... 
That is the antipathy of theosophical principles of altruism and self 
sacrifice. Certainly, the teacher learns by teaching what one knows -- 
mainly by trying to answer the deeper questions of the students... But, fora 
true theosophist, that cannot be even a shadow of the motive that drives one 
to do it.  

Implications that you know something profound by statements following 
mystical sounding vagaries, that you will "talk about it later," carries no 
weight for discriminating people. So, why don't we come down to brass tacks 
for a change, and say directly, what we really mean -- without all the 
negative connotations about theosophical student's personalities and 
knowledge, and implications that you can teach us something we don't already 
know. If you can, why haven't you done so? All we seem to be getting is 
platitudes, unfounded criticisms, mystical sounding homilies, and totally 
wrong view of theosophy and what it teaches.

Apparently -- since you don't seem to understand what theosophists means by 
"immortality" -- you think its okay to indiscriminately call them "ignorant" 
and "persons of no real understanding." So, I guess that applies, in your 
eyes, to all students of the Secret Doctrine and theosophy in general.  
Looking at what you say in this manner, certainly clarifies our knowledge of 
where you are coming from, and why you need others, in an "assembly" under 
your control, to help you on your own path to enlightenment. Isn't that the 
epitome of selfishness? And, why should your weakness in traveling along your 
path, have to reflect on others, who have their own karma to overcome?  
Wouldn't this "method" of yours be a total violation of the Master's 
principles, that says that one can only achieve enlightenment through one's 
own "self devised and self determined efforts?" Isn't that the "pathless 
path" spoken of by Krishnamurti -- who never tried to build a worshipful 
sangha around him. (By the way, I've had many a dialogue with JK over a 15 
year period -- so please don't tell us you know more about his teachings than 
I do.)

Also, what is it (that you know that we don't) that justifies your arrogant 
and personal use of a professed "theosophy-talk" forum that depends on the 
teachings of HPB and the Masters for its raison d'etre -- to promote such 
self serving ends that, from every angle, seems to go against their 
teachings? Even HPB never professed to be a guru for others to guide them in 
attaining their self realization with the purpose of obtaining her own 
enlightenment. All she did was point them to the path to self realization 
that they had to travel "by their own self devised and self determined study 
and efforts." Even in her esoteric school, she didn't give her students 
anything more than guidelines -- by thoroughly explaining the metaphysics of 
the obstacles, and useful negative and positive energies they would find 
along the way. Where are we seeing you doing anything even close to that?  
How, can such "guidepost" teaching be "time dependent"? Does human nature 
change over time? Is all you can see that makes us human, the "material" of 
our forms?    

Of course, I'm the last one to deny that the external factors influencing our 
lives today are much different that in HPB's time. But, from my point of 
view, understanding thoroughly what HPB was striving for, those factors were 
well considered by her, since she knew exactly how science would progress 
toward its asymptote, how time would compress accordingly, and how our 
communication systems would keep closely in line with it.   

So, why do we have to follow you -- when you haven't shown more than a 
superficial understanding of the theosophical teachings -- yet professing to 
be a theosophist? Have you ever given us any evidence that you understand 
even the fundamental principles of occultism that underlie such teachings -- 
which might justify your becoming any prospective theosophist's guru? All 
I've ever heard is vague and mystical jargon, that has no basis in 
fundamental realities that we could wrap our minds around. 

I'm still waiting to hear one practical theosophical or occult teaching that 
you have to give us that isn't just a mish mash hash of what snippets you 
picked up reading e-mails in this forum. Even if you got some little 
knowledge that way -- you should be grateful for the serious theosophists 
here who gave it to you, instead of calling them all idiots for following 
HPB's direct teachings rather than your pompous self aggrandizing pap. So 
far, all you've done is antagonize everyone whose mailings you have responded 
to. That's no way to foster brotherhood in my book.

>I will be going into this in great detail, little by little in the weeks
>to come and examining this idea again and again until those who have an
>openness and a genuine curiosity can begin to understand. If you disagree
>with me, feel free to start a dialogue as long as you use your own words,
>speak from your own understanding and experience and keep it simple. In
>this way we can all learn together. Bring to your friends to this list
>now so they can participate. You will not need to be a so called theosophist
>to understand this discussion though it will surely be of very great value
>to anyone who is a theosophist.

(Impersonal comments) 
Well, here we go again. Now that all the teachers of theosophy on this site 
have been browbeaten by this self proclaimed guru with a load of strongly 
assertive and unsubstantiated personal criticisms as well as downgrading of 
their theosophical teachings and methods, plus dismissing as false teachers 
both HPB and WQJ, and by implication, all the Masters -- since they are not 
"time appropriate" (whatever that means) -- we are apparently going to 
continue to get a repetitious denial of theosophical reality in favor of a 
new "materialist" teaching ("little by little, in great detail") that is 
going to bring us all (so called "non theosophists" as well) down to Earth 
and under the spell of a new, self proclaimed medium of god's wisdom, and 
leader of our "discussion" with a "specific aim" (unspecified) to serve a 
particular "function" (unspecified) that will be of "great value to 
theosophists."  

Wow... We should be trembling with anticipation. But, so far, none of these 
"so called theosophists" (who by implication are all idiots) have heard one 
profound new teaching out of the mouth of this self professed guru. (And, 
personally, believe it or not, I have been anxiously awaiting to hear all the 
things she constantly keeps on saying she is going to "talk about later." :-) 
But, by now, and after seeing some of the mail that has come in lately, the 
benefit of the doubts I had given her at the beginning of this ongoing attack 
on theosophy and theosophists is no longer appropriate,

So, how long do we have to wait before we hear anything more substantial than 
platitudes that, to a thinking theosophist, are completely self evident? 
(But, to a naive newcomer, they may sound very profound.) Seems like all 
thunder and never any rain. And, then, after all that, we are now being told 
how to respond and how to think. Am I the only one here that sees what this 
person is trying to do? Hey Eldon, how do you like this new moderator who is 
trying to fill your site with all her sheep that are told how to speak and 
act while they are here, who and what to believe, and are being droned on and 
on about the path to enlightenment and brotherhood that they must follow 
"before it's too late"?  

Using the same confidence game tactic that Scientology uses to convince 
prospective members that they have the final answer to cleaning us up 
psychologically and awakening our causal powers -- this self professed Adept 
is already giving us orders to bring our friends into her new school of self 
development. Are we being set up to be the "point men" for a new school of 
theosophy under the leadership of this "guru"?

The way this works is to repeat the same mantras and mystical key words over 
and over again, that have no underlying basis of meaning, except as obliquely 
implied in the context used -- until we are convinced that this guru is the 
wisest one of all, has a (self given) mandate to take the place of HPB and 
the Masters, and knows all the answers as to how we all may become 
enlightened and self realized as a group with specific "aims" and 
"functions."  

The reason such a process is so "slow," is that to gather the "flock," it 
depends upon proselytization by the first students who bite the bait (which 
always holds out the actual methods and even those particular aims and 
functions until "later").  

It's methods are similar to the pyramid sales techniques by word of mouth 
taught by such master con men as L. Ron Hubbard and Werner Ehrhardt (EST).  
BTW, I know much about this since, as an old con man myself (before I became 
a theosophist :-) I did extensive inside investigation of these people and 
their methods and teachings back in the 50's and 60's. Apparently, their 
interest was not only in the money, but mostly with the power they could 
wield over non discriminative hungry people who wanted the food for the soul 
they were serving up (but could never deliver). 

I'm sorry, but the present case smells the same, and I can't avoid pointing 
out the possibilities, and what's going on with this aggressive lady bug 
interloper -- who seems to take everyone here for a bunch of weak minded 
suckers. (I guess because -- except for the few serious theosophists she has 
tried to shoot down -- some here seem to like to argue with each other on 
side issue subjects.) By the way, in case some of you haven't heard, she has 
been using these same tactics on one of the consciousness study forums.  
However, most of those people have caught on pretty quickly and have given 
her a hard time, if not ignoring her altogether. 

Getting self realized certainly is a slow process, but I doubt if anyone can 
come along and show us how to arrive there on an e-mail forum. Especially, 
since all the shortcuts have already been disclosed or pointed to by 
theosophy. As for myself, I don't think anyone has to go further than 
practicing the yoga's outlined in the Voice of the Silence and in Patanjali's 
aphorisms while studying the guidance of both HPB and WQJ along those lines.  
Of course, if someone can come up with a better way -- I think we should all 
consider it. I'm not against anyone trying to form a private group of 
students into a brotherhood, even under a method contrary to theosophy as 
presented by HPB, but I think that should be a purely voluntary organization, 
and certainly not the dominant nature of this particular unmoderated forum, 
or forced on its members by the tear down-build up tactics being used.

However, wry, so far, all we've heard from you is, "I'll talk about this or 
that later." Well, how long do we have to wait? And, why? Is it because  
you, as a so called self professed "materialist," "Buddhist," "theosophist," 
"feminist," "HPB spokesman," and implied Master of GRP and SLP (whatever that 
means) and "slow cooking" alchemical magic -- just hasn't found out yet, and 
is waiting for the "discussion" you asked for to clue you in?  

Why don't you just ask us how you might solve your own psychological problems 
-- instead of assuming we're all a bunch of dunces waiting for our "savior" 
to come along and teach us how to "BE"? Or, do you figure yourself to be 
that savior? Pardon me, but since you insist on being so obscure and use 
such transparent con game tactics to "get your way" -- I feel impelled to 
take a hard line in questioning your motives and methods, as well as your 
knowledge of theosophy. Remember, you're the one who says you speak for HPB. 
I'm sure we are all eagerly waiting to hear what she has to say through you.

So here are some questions (for which I think we all would expect direct and 
unequivocal answers): What new method of enlightenment or self realization 
are you trying to sell us? What is its so called "aim" and "function" -- 
besides as a private group to feed your own ego, desire for power over 
others, or need for finding yourself? Why are you trying to knock down and 
override the fundamental teachings of theosophy? Do you know what those 
fundamental teachings are? If so, why don't you tell them to us directly?  
What are your qualifications that give you the right to take over the 
moderation or leadership of "discussion" in this forum under your rules?  
And, why are you so determined to do so, that you will resort to any means, 
including personality bashing and snide innuendoes about our lack of 
intelligence, to assure your dominance?  

>This is just a preliminary message. When a person say "We are immortal"
>and tells this again and again to other people, this needs to serve a 
FUNCTION
>of some kind or it is utterly meaningless and pouring from the empty into
>the void. We do not want to do this as we will lose our grip or the 
underlying
>sense of "I am" which can serve as a pure vibrational foundation for a
>kind of active making or creative activity which is CONSCIOUS. If I cannot
>explain the function of this concept of being "immortal" yet continue
>to cling to it, than it must serve a function that supports something in
>my psychological self (personality) that I am unable to let go of.

That's surely your problem. You actually don't understand what that word 
refers to. That's why you can't explain the function it has from a 
theosophical point of view. Certainly "We (as personalities) are NOT 
immortal" -- since these bodies have to die. That is the whole basis of the 
theosophical teachings -- which, apparently, you have yet to understand, 
since you keep bringing up such straw man arguments to bolster your 
implications that you are the new Guru of theosophy. Apparently, to you, the 
"I am" is associated only with our bodies and its "being" and "doing." 
Therefore, you apparently live under the delusion that since the higher self 
serves no "function," it must not be thought about. In your mind, I suppose, 
it's better to cling to the lower self -- whose vibrations, from a 
theosophical metaphysical standpoint, are far weaker psychologically, than 
the spiritual vibrations on the mental level. So, what's to gain by that? If 
that's what you believe, I guess you don't understand spiritual alchemy after 
all. (But, I suppose, according to your previous comments on that subject, 
that's par for the course for "women and half crazy men." :-)    

So, don't you agree that consciousness or spirit is eternal -- at least as 
long as the Cosmos exists, asleep or awake? And, are we not that 
consciousness (whether individualized or merged with the Solar or Cosmic 
consciousness)? And isn't it that spirit which is the real CREATOR? So, 
shouldn't our immortality and CONSCIOUS creativity be based on that knowledge 
and understanding? (Not on its "eternity" but simply, its "continuity" for so 
long as the Solar or Cosmic consciousness exists.) But, that is nothing but 
pure theosophy? So, why are you acting as if you know more than what the 
rest of us serious students of HPB already know and have incorporated in our 
lives and teachings? Does your self professed membership in the same secret 
society as HPB make you HPB's spokesman? Do you even know who HPB really is? 
Can we really believe you so long as your concepts go in the diametrically 
opposite direction of HPB's teachings?

As a matter of fact, I am the member of at least a dozen secret societies HPB 
is/was a member of... But, I would never have the hubris or chutzpah to 
profess to speak "for" HPB. (HPB said, "A theosophist is a member of no cult 
or sect but a member of each and all"). So far I haven't heard one idea come 
from you that sounds at all like what HPB, or any of the three Masters (whom 
the initials "HPB" represent to any knowledgeable occultist) that spoke 
through that body, might say That's the first sign for any occultist to 
recognize that you haven't the faintest idea what HPB or theosophy is all 
about... And, are simply trying to take over this forum as its new 
guru/leader -- ostensibly, to practice a new form of group self 
enlightenment, based on an "unbiased recorder" (whatever that means) -- for 
which you profess to have the only knowledge about. Well, let's hear how 
that can serve anyone else but yourself?  

Shades of AB, AAB, CWL, JK, ECP, HS, and all the other old and "new Age" 
prophets who came along after HPB. I guess you're now joining the club. As 
I said before -- "the Master said, 'we will know them by their fruits.'" At 
least, they wrote their books, so we could examine their fruits. So, where's 
your book? What's new with your system, that they haven't already covered?  
Or, are you just trying to be our personal guru who just teaches by setting 
examples and making parables? Well, sock it to us! So far, all we've got is 
vague implications, circular reasoning, non-sequitur statements, and 
unfounded criticisms. 

As for that "unbiased recorder," Maybe you should read WQJ and find out what 
he taught about bringing the unconscious self into wakeful consciousness and 
seeing the reality of who and what we really are. That's as unbiased as one 
can get, and all it takes is individual "culture of concentration." That's 
all one needs to become a "nucleus of universal brotherhood" -- without 
sitting at anyone else's feet, licking their toes, and following their path 
-- under their rules of order. 
 
>Of course if there is no psychological self but only pure essence and an
>alive (liberated from conditioning) intelligence which deliberately controls
>the external manifestations of the personality (rather than their being
>mechanically activated by aimless and fragmented reactions to variously
>triggered portions of a psychological complex), then there is no "me" to
>die, but only a body, so in this sense, there is a connection to something
>eternal, but nothing psychological to be connected to it, so it is an 
oxymoron
>to speak of being "immortal," as there would be nothing to relate to it.
>This is very important to understand and we can go into it in detail.

This makes no sense whatsoever -- since it is a circular argument that 
contradicts itself. Also, the use of words in different contexts in the same 
sentence, such as confusing the words body (physical) with psychological, and 
immortal with eternal is a dead giveaway that you don't know what you are 
talking about. Also, how can the single word "immortal" be an oxymoron? You 
don't even seem to know what an oxymoron is. Every theosophist knows the 
difference between the immortal higher self and the mortal lower self. Why 
are you so confused about what theosophy teaches? I thought you said you 
knew all about it just from reading letters on this forum. But, have you 
really studied it and meditated on all its connotations and correlation's? Or 
are all your statements just a combination of mystical words you picked up 
here and there, along with a hodge podge of religious, alchemical, Masonic 
and scientific jargon that sounds like you are saying something, but that 
means nothing?

Just because you seem to identify yourself with your personality and are 
seeking "liberation from conditioning" -- so as to become an "alive 
intelligence" that is NOT "being mechanically activated by aimless and 
fragmented reactions to variously triggered portions of a psychological 
complex" (whatever that means) -- what satisfaction does it give you to imply 
that all the rest of us are so disabled functionally and psychologically?  
You seem to take an inordinate glee is pointing out everyone else's faults 
and failures? Could it be that everything you say is colored by this 
obviously false view of both yourself and of others? Or, are you just 
projecting your self insecurities on them? Usually, such arrogance as you 
seem to have in stating so positively that you are right and everyone else is 
wrong in their approach to or understanding of theosophy, stems from a 
fundamental insecurity -- which could be based on the same "psychological 
conditioning" that you claim everyone else has.  

To claim, after such positive and sometimes aggressive remarks that you "may 
be wrong" (with what appears to me to be an obvious insincerity or false 
humility) is a dead giveaway (a "tell" as con men say). (Although I could be 
wrong –- since you may actually believe you are sincere. :-) However, I 
can't help asking... Could that be interpreted as a sincere wish to justify 
your own insecurities by projecting them onto us?  

Please don't take this personally. I'm only wondering. Since, like you, 
perhaps, I prefer to speak out exactly what questions are in my mind (and I 
don't worry about tit for tat:-)... Although, I prefer just talking about 
facts, or ideas about reality, or methods and practices without bringing in 
personal remarks about other people's personalities, fanaticism's, or 
relative stupidities. Don't know about you, but gratuitous psychoanalyzing is 
not my cup of tea. And, I'm not making judgments either... Just questioning, 
and pointing out possibilities and probabilities that intuitively pop into my 
mind whenever I read anything you say to anyone. 

>But re. literal "immortality," one must look at the human body in 
relationship
>to the SUN of this solar system and understand that everything that we
>know as human is in relationship to this sun

Yes, that's obvious, isn't it? But one must also understand that this 
relationship begins with the spiritual level of one's consciousness, whose 
eternal nourishment is far more important than the physical nature or human 
body -- which has only a temporary existence on this plane of reality.  
Knowing the path through the seven fold nature that that nourishment takes, 
and how to utilize it is the whole key to self realization. But, there are 
many ways of finding that out, and each depends on knowing the karmic path 
where each of us stands individually. No one can tell anyone else what is 
their path of yoga at this particular time in any of their separate lives. A 
guru can only serve those who come to him voluntarily and is on the same 
karmic path or lineage. That is the law of affinity that cannot be overridden 
by aggressive proselytization -- such as you have been attempting here.

BTW, what has "literal immortality" got to do with the relationship of the 
body to the sun? (And, BTW, those two words together are an oxymoron.)  
Seems like a complete non sequitur to me. Incidentally, HPB gave us a very 
through teaching on how one can utilize the Sun's radiation for healing of 
both the body and the soul. In fact, if you know the right method, you can 
receive those rays even when the Earth is between you and the Sun. Since you 
are so adept at telling others what to read, I suggest you look up those 
teachings and study them. Why don't you ask Dallas where to find them? That 
is, if you hadn't already skimmed those references in one of Dallas recent 
letters, and that is what triggered the above remark. :-)  

>It may be possible to claim
>our true birthright for AS LONG AS THIS SOLAR SYSTEM EXISTS, but even
>this would be very unlikely, as we have mother NATURE to contend with on
>this matter, and she has other plans for us. What is CONSCIOUS AIM and
>how can this figure into the formation of the material of an I that is
>more permanent? If I already AM, than what I do will create order out
>of chaos, but if this is NOT the case, if there are only different I's
>triggered as reactions along with flickers of self consciousness, than
>something needs to record this. Without this recording process I will never
>know myself but will continue to live in illusion and fantasy (no matter
>how noble my feelings seem to me) and encourage others to do the same.
>Everything starts at the beginning of a pure" I am." If I want to base
>my further activities on something that is not fragmented by external 
circumstances
>into mechanical thoughts, feelings and patterns of activity, a lengthy
>and impartial self study is required, whether I like it or not. It is a
>fact of being. Without making this kind of study, there can be no real
>being, which is always in present time with no remainder, but there will
>only be mechanical reactive processes and a fantasy, no matter how 
pleasurable,
>until my own wolf which I have ignored comes back to devour me in the form
>of an external war or whatever, because I did not know how to keep opposing
>forces contained within myself in such a way that something could be 
elevated,
>thereby saving the sheep. Sincerely, Wry

As for this statement, I agree with you somewhat -- although you left out 
karma and attributed conscious creation to "Mother Nature" which is wrong... 
(Although Nature will take its karmic toll if mankind doesn't stop its 
predation's.) In any event, Mother nature is not the creator, but simply a 
receptor and reactor. One must learn the difference between the yin and the 
yang, the male and the female, the Sun and the Earth. But, then WQJ already 
explained all this (as well as the "impartial self study"in his articles 
about the daily recording of consciousness by replaying all our actions and 
thoughts and recording them in our higher mind). It's a simple yoga that 
anyone can do all by one's self. But, this doesn't require some new teaching 
to facilitate... Although, it wouldn't hurt if someone pointed these articles 
out to new students of theosophy... So they could practice such yoga's on 
their own, and eventually reach self realization -- which will help them come 
together as a knowledgeable and practiced group that might be able to effect 
some meaningful changes in the world. When that is accomplished, and the 
"materials" are in place, then (and only then) the Magician who could help 
guide them, might appear.  

But, I sympathize with the problem you have with recognizing and coming to 
terms with the "wolf" within you. Perhaps, you intuitively know the 
difference between fantasy and reality. Although, apparently, you have not 
yet brought them into proper conjunction within your own being. That's 
unfortunate. But, your method of trying to assemble a group in order to 
teach such discrimination to those who have not yet approached a true 
understanding and practice of theosophy -- in order to attain your own self 
realization -- has much to be desired. Perhaps, if you did this with proper 
discretion, by joining in rather than tearing down, you would be able to gain 
the cooperation of the presently respected teachers of theosophy -- to help 
you in whatever direction you would need resolve your own inner problems. As 
for the self realization of others -- better to leave that to their own self 
devised and self determined study and efforts. All we can do is point the 
way, and then step aside while they practice their own particular yoga -- 
which they should find for themselves. 

However, by the hubristic means that you have taken to promote your own 
imagined infallibility, as well as a vague new method to achieve self 
realization that's supposed to be good for everybody, while stepping on the 
heads of those who may be far ahead of you in such self knowledge -- while 
expressing at the same time, the obvious confusion you are in regarding your 
own self -- does nothing more than turn those tried and true teachers against 
you. It's not a very good idea from a theosophical point of view, to try to 
use others as a means to attain your own enlightenment. If you weren't so 
arrogant and overbearing in your assertions we could be far more sympathetic 
to your needs. But, we'll just have to patiently wait and see how you 
proceed from here on out, won't we?  

Best wishes,

Leon Maurer

P.S. I wrote a couple of long responsive letters in answer to your several 
previous insulting e-mails to me and other friends (tit for tat, y'know) -- 
as the usual way to express my inner wolf when her toes get stepped on. :-)   
Even though I can't keep up with your prolific and repetitious output, and 
was waiting to see how far you intended to go with your plan to replace HPB 
and take over this forum, I had no intention of mailing them, however... 
Since, I see no point in provoking emotional counter attacks or going public 
once my anger has been neutralized by merely writing it down. (You've 
already answered most of my previous poking questions, anyway [even by 
omission:-] which were just designed to draw you out.) Besides, I was 
waiting for this particular letter to give me an opportunity to directly 
comment to your statements.  

No matter what side of the fence you are on, I find in the play of life, a 
little bit of acting out goes a long way toward soothing the savage beast and 
setting controversial ideas and actions in their proper perspective. :-)  
Shakespeare (or Francis Bacon if you will) taught me more about this than any 
other dead or alive gurus I've met on stage or in their books over the years. 
But, I'm saving all our letters, since this whole episode is very good 
material for a book/play I'm planning about gurus, wolves, flocks, saviors, 
critics, head shrinkers, lovers, haters, and other things.

Actually, wry, if you read this far, you may understand that I am playing the 
devil's advocate. (BTW, some of your more recent critical letters have only 
added to my trepidation's about your motives and your methods.) If you 
really are sincere you will answer my questions and face the consequences of 
my suspicions without rancor or a personal "holier than thou" attitude that 
you are the cat's whiskers, and everyone else are a stupid fools for 
believing that Blavatsky knew more about the "time appropriateness " of her 
teachings, and their usefulness in achieving "self realization" and 
"brotherhood," than you might. So, prove me wrong... Or, show us that you 
are willing to give the devil his due, and are willing to listen and learn.  
LHM