Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00115)

In a message dated 07/01/04 4:26:20 AM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

>
>
>Some of your arguments remind me of arguments made
>
>by followers of Bailey, Leadbeater, Prophet, etc. who say you
>
>shouldn't take what HPB and the Mahatmas say literally but
>
>should look between the lines... At least in some of these
>
>cases these followers are simply trying to wiggle out
>
>of a clear contradiction between what HPB and the Masters
>
>originally wrote and what some later claimant asserts.....


Do you mean to say or imply, Daniel, that you think that my scientific 
interpretations of theosophical metaphysics, my ideas of how to study it by not 
taking anything literally, and my speculations about certain occult phenomena and 
their possibilities and impossibilities, are in the same class as those phony 
pseudo theosophists -- who twisted theosophy into a Christian theological and 
hierarchical Messianic mode? 

If so, are you not implying that you are a died in the wool literalist, who, 
therefore, can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to understanding 
the true nature of occult reality, and are confusing apples with oranges when 
you try to use the literal and highly qualified writings of HPB and the Masters 
as well as questionable observations of others to apparently refute some of 
my speculative comments or statements about the possible or probable nature of 
some occult phenomena supposedly produced by HPB or the Masters? 

I hope not... For, if so, my discussing theosophical metaphysics with you on 
the level of its occult meaning and understanding -- which is (in most cases) 
"in and around the words and between its lines" (as, more or less 
*graphically* implied in its *original* typography and sentence structure) -- could be a 
hopeless exercise in futility. 

LHM