Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00438)

Morten,

You write:

"Many Seekers after Wisdom has been attracted towards 
the (real)theosophical teachings via Bailey's books, 
which not otherwise would been so.
This is true and very important."

"I talk about Seekers who without doubt would have 
rejected the --- old-timer HPB and her old writings, 
her old use of vocabulary, her to some difficult manner 
of writing. Let us admit that she indeed had her own 
style. >:-) I like it, but others don't. And so it is."

Morten, you write about HPB's "OLD writings, 
her OLD use of vocabulary."

But you fail to explain what you really mean by
OLD.

When does something become OLD? And is your implication
that something NEW is better or truer?

You write of HPB's OLD use of vocabulary but is that
necessarily bad although I don't really know what you
are referring to?

Give some examples of a NEW use of vocabulary?

And when does soemthing become OLD? 1 year after it's
written? Ten years? Twenty years? 50? 100?

Goodness most of Bailey's writings are at least 50 yeears OLD!!
Therefore what is NEWER?? And BETTER??

Morten, if you quote some Sufi mystic's writings or saying
from more than 50 years ago, are you quoting OLD writings which
have OLD vocabulary? 

You also state:

"Many Seekers after Wisdom has been attracted towards 
the (real)theosophical teachings via Bailey's books. . . ."

But what are the REAL theosophical teachings? And how
do you KNOW that many seekers have been attracted to
those REAL teachings via Bailey's books??

Maybe what you say is true, but then again, who knows
since you make assertions without exactly telling us
what your reasoning is or is not behind those assertions.

Daniel