Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00728)

Morten,

Thanks for your latest answer to my email.

You cover much material and I will have to break
up my replies in several emails over several days.

I see one theme in your email that you repeat over and over.
I quote several examples.

**"Time has changed the situation. Even Blavatsky says 
this."

**"I did this, so to try to make you the readers understand 
that the times of Blavatsky is in the above sense all 
over. We are indeed in a different situation, than when 
Blavatsky lived."

**"FALSE IDEAS today is not the same FALSE IDEAS when 
Blavatsky and K.H. wrote their views."

**"The word 'AUTHORITY' do not has the same meaning 
as it had when Blavatsky lived."

**"You present below is to me - quite dead-letter 
like interpretations - take from OLD written material
which do not relate to our present situation on 
how the Ancient Wisdom teachings are operating and 
the core Theosophical teachings aught to operate."

Morten, I am amazed by all of your assertions here.

You say that:

Times have changed, the situation is different.

The meaning of HPB's and KH's words have changed.
The meaning is different now.

YET YOU FAIL to tell us how the situation has actually
changed. 

And again you do not specify exactly how the meaning of
of HPB's and KH's words have changed.

Your assertions do not help me to understand exactly
what you are trying to convey to us. It is all quite
vague. 

Again you emphasize that Blavatsky's writings are 
"OLD written material".

Yet you recommend a REALLY OLD text!!!!

"The Bhagavad Gita is still true."

The implication when you write "OLD written material"
is that the NEW is preferred. But you fail to tell
us why. And what NEW written material should we 
be reading?? You fail to say.

Again you mention your favorite theme about "quite 
dead-letter like interpretations".

But as far as I can see, you fail to tell us exactly
HOW we should interpret the material. And furthermore
you "put down" interpretations that apparently you
don't like with the phrase "quite dead-letter 
like" and imply you have a better, more esoteric 
interpretation. But I fail to see exactly what your
interpretation is or why it is THE correct or preferred
one.

If you really believe Blavatsky's and KH's writings are 
actually "OLD written material" and the meanings of their
words are all changed, why even refer to what they wrote?

More in my next email.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc