Theos-Talk Archives (February 2004 Message tt00190)

In a message dated 02/26/04 3:11:09 PM, krishtar_a@brturbo.com writes:

>Bart wrote:
>
>
>
>(...)A) Blavatsky was not an Adept. She wasn't even a particularly good
>choice for the projects the Adepts had in mind. She was just the best 
>available at the time....(...)
>
>
>
> Hi
>My view is:
>It is not true.
HPB although in a female human body and subject to certain limitations
>of an incarnated ego showed many signs of her cosmic origins.
> Although Master Kut Hoo Mi, in ML´s, referred this way about her, it
>is not difficult to see that an Adept is a human being who´s reached his
>highest point concerning to a top terrestrial evolution.
> Between the lines it is possible to notice a little chauvinism in Master
>KH sections.
> We never conceive a master with human imperfections, it is our biggest
>mistake.
> If she supposed got less merit, why would they choose her?

Merit would have had nothing to do with it. Maybe she was chosen because she 
was a natural born psychic, highly talented artistically, very well educated, 
and the only avowed and devoted chela the Masters could find capable of 
telepathy with them, mingling on an equal par with the Western intellectuals, and 
writing KH and M's teachings in legible English. Of course, if one understands 
the meaning of the word "adept," HPB could very well qualify as one. In any 
event, if theosophy is true, then we are all beings of "cosmic origins." And, 
our level of adepship is dependent on our own self devised and self 
determined efforts. Apparently, HPB had already reached such a stage in herprevious 
life.
Leonardo