Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00434)

July 28 2004

Dear Friends:

Here is what H P B wrote about "Pseudo - Theosophy 

----------------------------
ON PSEUDO-THEOSOPHY

H. P. Blavatsky

  
The most difficult thing in life is to know
yourself . 
--THALES 


SHALL WE WINNOW THE CORN, BUT FEED UPON THE CHAFF?


THE presiding genius in the Daily News Office runs amuck at LUCIFER in his
issue of February 16th. He makes merry over the presumed distress of some
theosophists who see in our serial novel, "The Talking Image of Urur"--by
our colleague, Dr. F. Hartmann--an attempt to poke fun at the Theosophical
Society. Thereupon, the witty editor quizzes "Madame Blavatsky" for
observing that she "does not agree with the view" taken by some pessimists;
and ends by expressing fear that "the misgivings that have been awakened
will not easily be laid to rest."
 
Ride, si sapis. It is precisely because it is our desire that the
"misgivings" awakened should reach those in whom the sense of personality
and conceit has not yet entirely stifled their better feelings, and force
them to recognize themselves in the mirror offered to them in the "Talking
Image," that we publish the "satirical" novel. 

This proceeding of ours--rather unusual, to be sure, for editors --to
publish a satire, which seems to the short-sighted to be aimed at their gods
and parties only because they are unable to sense the underlying philosophy
and moral in them, has created quite a stir in the dailies. 

The various Metropolitan Press Cutting Agencies are pouring every morning on
our breakfast-table their load of criticism, advice, and comment upon the
rather novel policy. So, for instance, a kindly-disposed correspondent of
the Lancashire Evening Post (February 18) writes as follows: 

The editor of LUCIFER has done a bold thing. She is publishing a story
called "The Talking Image of Urur," which is designed to satirise the false
prophets of Theosophy in order that the true prophets may be justified. I
appreciate the motive entirely, but, unfortunately, there are weak-minded
theosophists who can see nothing in Dr. Hartmann's spirited talk but a
caricature of their whole belief. So they have remonstrated with Madame
Blavatsky, and she replies in LUCIFER that "the story casts more just
ridicule upon the enemies and detractors of the Theosophic Society than upon
the few theosophists whose enthusiasm may have carried them into extremes."
Unfortunately, this is not strictly accurate. The hero of the tale, a
certain Pancho, is one of these enthusiasts, and it is upon him and upon the
mock "adepts" who deceive him that the ridicule is thrown. But it never
seems to have occurred to Madame Blavatsky and Dr. Hartmann that the moment
you begin to ridicule one element, even though it be a false element, in the
faith, you are apt to shake the confidence of many if not most believers,
for the simple reason that they have no sense of humour. The high priestess
of the cult may have this sense for obvious reasons, 1 but her disciples are
likely to be lost if they begin to laugh, and if they can't laugh they will
be bewildered and indignant. I offer this explanation with all humility to
Madame Blavatsky, who has had some experience of the effects of satire. 

The more so as, according to those members of the T.S. who have read the
whole story, it is precisely "Madame Blavatsky" against whom its satire is
the most directed. And if "Mme. Blavatsky"--presumably "the Talking
Image"--does not object to finding herself represented as a kind of
mediumistic poll parrot, why should other "theosophists" object? 

A theosophist above all men ought ever to bear in mind the advice of
Epictetus: "If evil be said of thee, and if it be true, correct thyself; if
it be a lie, laugh at it." We welcome a witty satire always, and defy
ridicule or any efforts in this direction to kill the Theosophical Society,
so long as it, as a body, remains true to its original principles. 

As to the other dangers so kindly urged by the Post, the "high priestess"
acknowledges the benevolent objections by answering and giving her reasons,
which are these: The chosen motto of the Theosophical Society has been for
years--"There is no religion higher than truth"; the object of LUCIFER is in
the epigraph on its cover, which is "to bring to light the hidden things of
darkness." 

If the editor of LUCIFER and the Theosophists would not belie these two
propositions and be true to their colours, they have to deal with perfect
impartiality, sparing no more themselves than outsiders, or even their
enemies. As to the "weak-minded theosophists"--if any--they can take care of
themselves in the way they please. 

If the "false prophets of Theosophy" are to be left untouched, the true
prophets will be very soon--as they have already been--confused with the
false. 

It is nigh time to winnow our corn and cast away the chaff. The T.S. is
becoming enormous in its numbers, and if the false prophets, the pretenders
(e.g., the "H. B. of L.," exposed in Yorkshire by Theosophists two years
ago, and the "G.N.K.R." just exposed in America), or even the weak-minded
dupes, are left alone, then the Society threatens to become very soon a
fanatical body split into three hundred sects--like Protestantism--each
hating the other, and all bent on destroying the truth by monstrous
exaggerations and idiotic schemes and shams. 

We do not believe in allowing the presence of sham elements in Theosophy,
because of the fear, forsooth, that if even "a false element in the faith"
is ridiculed, the latter "is apt to shake the confidence" in the whole. At
this rate Christianity would be the first to die out centuries ago under the
sledge-hammer blows dealt to its various churches by its many reformers. No
philosopher, no mystic or student of symbolism, can ever laugh at or
disbelieve in the sublime allegory and conception of the "Second
Advent"--whether in the person of Christ, Krishna, Sosiosh, or Buddha. 

The Kalki Avatar, or last (not "second") Advent, to wit, the appearance of
the "Saviour of Humanity" or the "Faithful" light of Truth, on the White
Horse of Death--death to falsehood, illusion, and idol, or self-worship--is
a universal belief. Shall we for all that abstain from denouncing the
behaviour of certain "Second Adventists" (as in America)? ..


THE WISE MAN COURTS TRUTH; THE FOOL, FLATTERY


However it may be, let rather our ranks be made thinner, than the
Theosophical Society go on being made a spectacle to the world through the
exaggerations of some fanatics, and the attempts of various charlatans to
profit by a ready-made programme. These, by disfiguring and adapting
Occultism to their own filthy and immoral ends, bring disgrace upon the
whole movement. 

Some writer remarked that if one would know the enemy against whom he has to
guard himself the most, the looking-glass will give him the best likeness of
his face. This is quite true. 

If the first object of our Society be not to study one's own self, but to
find fault with all except that self, then, indeed, the T.S. is doomed to
become--and it already has in certain centres--a Society for mutual
admiration; a fit subject for the satire of so acute an observer as we know
the author of "The Talking Image of Urur" to be. This is our view and our
policy. "And be it, indeed, that I have erred, mine error remaineth with
myself." 

That such, however, is the policy of no other paper we know a daily, a
weekly, a monthly, or a quarterly--we are quite aware. But, then, they are
the public organs of the masses. Each has to pander to this or that other
faction of politics or Society, and is doomed "to howl with the wolves,"
whether it likes or not. 

But our organs--LUCIFER pre-eminently--are, or ought to be, the phonographs,
so to speak, of the Theosophical Society, a body which is placed outside and
beyond all centres of forced policy. We are painfully conscious that "he who
tells the truth is turned out of nine cities"; that truth is unpalatable to
most men; and that--since men must learn to love the truth before they
thoroughly believe it--the truths we utter in our magazine are often as
bitter as gall to many. This cannot be helped. Were we to adopt any other
kind of policy, not only LUCIFER--a very humble organ of Theosophy--but the
Theosophical Society itself, would soon lose all its raison d'être and
become an anomaly. 

But "who shall sit in the seat of the scorner?" Is it the timid in heart,
who tremble at every opinion too boldly expressed in LUCIFER lest it should
displease this faction of readers or give offense to that other class of
subscribers? Is it the "self-admirers," who resent every remark, however
kindly expressed, if it happens to clash with their notions, or fails to
show respect to their hobbies? 

. . . I am Sir Oracle 
And when I ope my lips, let no dog bark


Surely we learn better and profit more by criticism than by flattery, and we
amend our ways more through the abuse of our enemies than the blind
pandering of friends. Such satires as the "Fallen Idol," and such chelas as
Nebelsen, have done more good to our Society, and certain of its members,
than any "theosophical" novel; for they have shown up and touched au vif the
foolish exaggerations of more than one enthusiast. 

Self abnegation is possible only to those who have learnt to know
themselves; to such as will never mistake the echo of their own inner
voice--that of selfish desire or passion--for the voice of divine
inspiration or an appeal from their MASTER. Nor is chelaship consonant with
mediumistic sensitiveness and its hallucinations; and therefore all the
sensitives who have hitherto forced themselves into discipleship have
generally made fools of themselves, and? sooner or later, thrown ridicule
upon the T.S. 

But after the publication of the "Fallen Idol" more than one such exhibition
was stopped. "The Talking Image of Urur" may then render the same, if not
better, service. If some traits in its various dramatis personæ fit in some
particulars certain members who still belong to the Society, other
characters--and the most successful of them--resemble rather certain
EX-members; fanatics, in the past, bitter enemies now--conceited fools at
all times. Furthermore "Puffer" is a compound and very vivid photograph....

It may be that of several members of the T.S., but it looks also like a
deluded victim of other bogus Esoteric and Occult Societies. One of such
just sprung up at Boston U.S.A., is now being nipped in the bud and exposed
by our own Theosophists. 

In the words of the "Boston Globe," this is the —


WEIRD TALE WHICH MAY HAVE A SEQUEL IN COURT


"If there are no arrests made, I shall go right on with the work; but if
they make trouble, I shall stay and face the music." 

Hiram Erastus Butler, the esoteric philosopher of 478 Shawmut avenue,
uttered the foregoing sentiment to a GLOBE reporter last evening as calmly
as one would make a casual remark about the weather. 

Thereby hangs a tale, a long, complicated, involuted, weird, mystical,
scientific, hysterical tale--a tale of love and intrigue, of adventure, of
alleged and to some extent of admitted swindling, of charges of a horrible
and unspeakable immorality, of communion with embodied and disembodied
spirits, and especially of money. In short, a tale that would make your head
weary and your heart faint if you attempted to follow out all its
labyrinthine details and count the cogs on its wheels within wheels. A tale
that quite possibly may find its sequel in the courts, where judge, jury,
and counsel will have a chance to cudgel their brains over almost every
mystery in the known universe. 

These are the heroes whom certain timid Theosophists--those who raised their
voices against the publication of the "Talking Image of Urur--"advised us to
leave alone. Had it not been for that unwillingness to expose even
impersonal things and deeds, our editorial would have been more explicit. 

Far from us be the desire to "attack" or "expose" even our enemies, so long
as they harm only ourselves, personally and individually. But here the whole
of the Theosophical body--already so maligned, opposed, and persecuted--was
endangered, and its destinies were hanging in the balance, because of that
impudent pseudo esoteric speculation. He, therefore, who maintains in the
face of the Boston scandal, that we did not act rightly in tearing off the
sanctimonious mask of Pecksniffian piety and the "Wisdom of the Ages" which
covered the grimacing face of a most bestial immorality, of insatiable
greediness for lucre and impudence, fire, water, and police proof--is no
true Theosophist. How minds, even of an average intelligence, could be
caught by such transparent snares as these publicly exhibited by the two
worthies, to wit: Adhy-Apaka and Vidya Nyaika--traced by the American press
to one Hiram E. Butler and Eli Ohmart--passes all comprehension! 

Suffice to read the pamphlet issued by the two confederates, to see at the
first glance that it was a mere repetition--more enlarged and barefaced, and
with a wider, bolder programme, still a repetition --of the now defunct
"H.B. of L." with its mysterious appeals of four years ago to the
"Dissatisfied" with "the Theosophical Mahatmas." 

The two hundred pages of the wildest balderdash constitute their "Appeal
from the Unseen and the Unknown" and the "Interior of the Inmost" (?) to
"the Awakened." Pantognomos and Ekphoron offer to teach the unwary "the laws
of ENS, MOVENS, and OM," and appeal for money. Vidya Nyaika and Ethnomedon
propose to initiate the ignorant into the "a priori Sambudhistic (?)
philosophy of Kapila" and--beg for hard cash. The story is so sickening that
we dislike to stain our pages with its details. But now to the moral of the
fable. 


YE SPURNED THE SUBSTANCE AND HAVE 
CLUTCHED THE SHADOW


For fourteen years our Theosophical Society has been before the public. Born
with the three-fold object of infusing a little more mutual brotherly
feeling in mankind; of investigating the mysteries of nature from the
Spiritual and Psychic aspect; and, of doing a tardy justice to the
civilizations and Wisdom of Eastern pre-Christian nations and literature, if
it did not do all the good that a richer Society might, it certainly did no
harm. 

It appealed only to those who found no help for their perplexities anywhere
else. To those lost in the psychic riddles of Spiritualism, or such, again,
as, unable to stand the morbid atmosphere of modern unbelief, and seeking
light in vain from the unfathomable mysteries taught by the theology of the
thousand and one Christian sects, had given up all hope of solving any of
the problems of life. There was no entrance fee during the first two years
of the Society's existence; afterwards, when the correspondence and postage
alone demanded hundreds of pounds a year, new members had to pay £I for
their diploma. 

Unless one wanted to support the movement, one could remain a Fellow all his
life without being asked for a penny, and two-thirds of our members have
never put their hand in their pocket, nor were they asked to do so. Those
who supported the cause were from the first a few devoted Theosophists who
laboured without conditions or any hope for reward. Yet no association was
more insulted and laughed at than was the Theosophical Society. 

No members of any body were spoken of in more contemptuous terms than the
Fellows of the T.S. from the first. The Society was born in America, and
therefore it was regarded in England with disfavour and suspicion. 

We were considered as fools and knaves, victims and frauds before the
benevolent interference of the Psychic Research Society, which tried to
build its reputation on the downfall of Theosophy and Spiritualism, but
really harmed neither. Nevertheless, when our enemies got the upper hand,
and by dint of slander and inventions had most maliciously succeeded in
placing before the credulous public, ever hungry for scandals and
sensations, mere conjectures as undeniable and proven facts, it was the
American press which became the most bitter in its denunciations of
Theosophy, and the American public the most willing to drink in and giggle
over the undeserved calumnies upon the Founders of the T.S. 

Yet it is they who were the first told, through our Society, of the actual
existence of Eastern Adepts in Occult Sciences. But both the English and the
Americans spurned and scoffed at the very idea, while even the Spiritualists
and Mystics, who ought to have known better, would, with a few exceptions,
have nothing to do with heathen Masters of Wisdom. The latter were, they
maintained, "invented by the Theosophists": it was all "moonshine." 

For these "Masters," whom no member was ever asked to accept, unless he
liked to do so himself, on whose behalf no supernatural claim was ever made,
unless, perhaps, in the too ardent imagination of enthusiasts; these Masters
who gave to, and often helped with money, poor Theosophists, but never asked
anything of the rich--these MASTERS were too much like real men. They
neither claimed to be gods nor spirits, nor did they pander to people's gush
and sentimental creeds. 

And now those Americans have got at last what their hearts yearned for: a
bona fide ideal of an adept and magician. A creature several thousand years
old. A true-blue "Buddhist-Brahmin" who appeals to Jehovah, or Jahveh,
speaks of Christ and the Messianic cycle, and blesses them with an AMEN and
an "OM MANE PADMI HUM" in the same breath, relieving them at the same time
of 40,000 dollars before they are a month old in their worship of him . . . 

Wullahy! Allah is great and--"Vidya Nyaika" is his only prophet. Indeed we
feel little pity for the victims. What is the psychology that some
Theosophists are accused of exercising over their victims in comparison with
this? And this necessitates a few words of explanation. 


IGNORANCE NOT ALTOGETHER BLISS


All know that there is a tacit, often openly-expressed, belief among a few
of the Fellows of the T.S. that a certain prominent Theosophist among the
leaders of the Society psychologizes all those who happen to come within the
area of that individual's influence. Dozens, nay, hundreds, were, and still
are, "psychologized." 

The hypnotic effect seems so strong as to virtually transform all such
"unfortunates" into irresponsible nincompoops, mere cyphers and tools of
that theosophical Circe. This idiotic belief was originally started by some
"wise men" of the West. 

Unwilling to admit that the said person had either any knowledge or powers,
bent on discrediting their victim, and yet unable to explain certain
abnormal occurrences, they hit upon this happy and logical loop-hole to get
out of their difficulties. 

The theory found a grateful and fruitful soil. Henceforth, whenever any
Fellows connected theosophically with the said "psychologizer" happen to
disagree in their views upon questions, metaphysical or even purely
administrative, with some other member--"on despotism bent," forthwith the
latter comes out with the favourite solution: "Oh, they are psychologized!"
The magic WORD springs out on the arena of discussion like a Jack-in-a-box,
and forthwith the attitude of the "rebels" is explained and plausibly
accounted for. 

Of course the alleged "psychology" has really no existence outside the
imagination of those who are too vain to allow any opposition to their
all-wise and autocratic decrees on any other ground than phenomenal--nay,
magical--interference with their will. A short analysis of the Karmic
effects that would be produced by the exercise of such powers may prove
interesting to theosophists. 

Even on the terrestrial, purely physical plane, moral irresponsibility
ensures impunity. Parents are answerable for their children, tutors and
guardians for their pupils and wards, and even the Supreme Courts have
admitted extenuating circumstances for criminals who are proved to have been
led to crime by a will or influences stronger than their own. How much more
forcibly this law of simple retributive justice must act on the psychic
plane; and what, therefore, may be the responsibility incurred by using such
psychological powers, in the face of Karma and its punitive laws, may be
easily inferred. Is it not evident that, if even human justice recognizes
the impossibility of punishing an irrational idiot, a child, a minor, etc.,
taking into account even hereditary causes and bad family influences--that
the divine Law of Retribution, which we call KARMA, must visit with
hundredfold severity one who deprives reasonable, thinking men of their free
will and powers of ratiocination? From the occult standpoint, the charge is
simply one of black magic, of envoûtement. 

Alone a Dugpa, with "Avitchi" yawning at the further end of his life cycle,
could risk such a thing. Have those so prompt to hurl the charge at the head
of persons in their way, ever understood the whole terrible meaning implied
in the accusation? We doubt it. 

No occultist, no intelligent student of the mysterious laws of the "night
side of Nature," no one who knows anything of Karma, would ever suggest such
an explanation. What adept or even a moderately-informed chela would ever
risk an endless future by interfering with, and therefore taking upon
himself, the Karmic debit of all those whom he would so psychologize as to
make of them merely the tools of his own sweet will! 

This fact seems so evident and palpably flagrant, that it is absurd to have
to recall it to those who boast of knowing all about Karma. 
Is it not enough to bear the burden of the knowledge that from birth to
death, the least, the most unimportant, unit of the human family exercises
an influence over, and receives in his turn, as unconsciously as he
breathes, that of every other unit whom he approaches, or who comes in
contact with him? Each of us either adds to or diminishes the sum total of
human happiness and human misery, "not only of the present, but of every
subsequent age of humanity," as shown so ably by Elihu Burritt, who says: 

There is no sequestered spot in the Universe, no dark niche along the disc
of non-existence, from which he (man) can retreat from his relations to
others, where he can withdraw the influence of his existence upon the moral
destiny of the world; everywhere his presence or absence will be
felt--everywhere he will have companions who will be better or worse for his
influence. It is an old saying, and one of fearful and fathoming import,
that we are forming characters for eternity. Forming characters! Whose? Our
own or others'? 

Both--and in that momentous fact lies the peril and responsibility of our
existence. Who is sufficient for the thought? Thousands of my fellow-beings
will yearly enter eternity 2 with characters differing from those they would
have carried thither had I never lived. The sunlight of that world will
reveal my finger-marks in their primary formations, and in their successive
strata of thought and life. 

These are the words of a profound thinker. And if the simple fact of our
living changes the sum of human weal and woe--in a way for which we are,
owing to our ignorance, entirely irresponsible--what must be the Karmic
decree in the matter of influencing hundreds of people by an act perpetrated
and carried on for years in premeditation and the full consciousness of what
we are doing! 
Verily the man or woman in the unconscious possession of such dangerous
powers had much better never be born. The Occultist who exercises them
consciously will be caught up by the whirlwind of successive rebirths,
without even an hour of rest. 

Woe to him, then, in that ceaseless, dreary series of terrestrial Avitchis;
in that interminable a on of torture, suffering, and despair, during which,
like the squirrel doomed to turn the wheel at every motion, he will launch
from one life of misery into another, only to awake each time with a fresh
burden of other people's Karma, which he will have drawn upon himself! Is it
not enough, indeed, to be regarded as "frauds, cranks, and infidels," by the
outsiders, without being identified with wizards and witches by our own
members! 


THE GENUS "INFIDEL" AND ITS VARIETIES


It is true to say that the varieties of infidels are many, and that one
"infidel" differs from another infidel as a Danish boar-hound differs from
the street mongrel. A man may be the most heterodox infidel with regard to
orthodox dogmas. Yet, provided he proclaims himself loudly a Christian, that
heterodoxy--when even going to the length of saying that "revealed religion
is an imposture"--will be regarded by some as simply "of that exalted kind
which rises above all human forms." 3 

A "Christian" of such a kind may--as the late Laurence Oliphant has--give
vent to a still more startling theory. He may affirm that he considers that
"from time to time the Divine Influence emanates itself, so to speak, in
phenomenal persons. Sakyamouni was such; Christ was such; and such I
consider Mr. (Lake) Harris to be--in fact, he is a new avatar," 4 and still
remain a Christian of an "exalted kind" in the sight of the "Upper Ten." But
let an "infidel" of the Theosophical Society say just the same (minus the
absurdity of including the American Lake Harris in the list of the Avatars),
and no contumely heaped upon him by clergy and servile newspapers will ever
be found too strong! 

But this belongs properly to the paradoxes of the Age; though the Avataric
idea has much to do with Karma and rebirth, and that belief in reincarnation
has nothing in it that can militate against the teachings of Christ. We
affirm, furthermore, that the great Nazarene Adept distinctly taught it. So
did Paul and the Synoptics, and nearly all the earliest Church Fathers, with
scarcely an exception, accepted it, while some actually taught the doctrine.



DO NOT START TWO HARES AT ONCE


>From the sublime to the ridiculous there is but one step, and Karma acts
along every line, on nations as on men. The Japanese Mikado is tottering
towards his end for having played too long at hide and seek with his
worshippers. Hundreds of shrewd Americans have been taken in through
disbelieving in truths and lending a too credulous ear to bold lies. ...
What "Mdme. Blavatsky" replied in the Lotus December 1887) to the Abbé's
assertions that the said fusion between his Church and Theosophy would
surely come, was this: 

. . . "We are not as optimistic as he (the Abbé Roca) is. His church seesin
vain her greatest 'mysteries' unmasked and the fact proclaimed in every
country by scholars versed in Orientalism and Symbology as by Theosophists;
and we refuse to believe that she will ever accept our truths or confess her
errors. And as, on the other hand, no true theosophist will accept any more
a carnalised Christ according to the Latin dogma than an anthropomorphic
God, and still less a 'Pastor' in the person of a Pope, it is not the adepts
who will ever go toward 'the Mount of Salvation,' (as invited by the Abbe).
They will rather wait that the Mahomet of Rome should go to the trouble of
taking the path which leads to Mount Meru." . . . .

This is not rejecting "the authority of Christ" if the latter be regarded as
we and Laurence Oliphant regarded Him, i.e. as an Avatar like Gautama Buddha
and other great adepts who became the vehicles or Reincarnations of the
"one" Divine influence. What most of us will never accept is the
anthropomorphized "charmant docteur" of Renan, or the Christ of Torquemada
and Calvin rolled into one. Jesus, the Adept we believe in, taught our
Eastern doctrines, KARMA and REINCARNATION foremost of all. When the
so-called Christians will have learnt to read the New Testament between the
lines, their eyes will be opened and--they will see. 

We propose to deal with the subject of Karma and Reincarnation in our next
issue. Meanwhile, we are happy to see that a fair wind is blowing over
Christendom and propels European thought more and more Eastward. 

Lucifer, March, 1889 

-----------------------------------------------

Footnotes
 
1 The "obvious reasons" so delicately worded are these: "the high priestess
of the cult" is almost universally supposed, outside of the T.S., to have
exercised her own satirical powers and "sense of humour" on her alleged and
numerous victims by bamboozling them into a belief of her own invention. So
be it. The tree is known by its fruits, and it is posterity which will have
to decide on the nature of the fruit.--ED.] 
 
2 Devachan, rather; the entr'acte between two incarnations. 
 
3 Vide Lady Grant Duff's article "Laurence Oliphant" in the Contemporary
Review for February: pages 185 and 188.
 
4 Ibid. Quoted from Sir Thomas Wade's notes, by Lady Grant Duff--page 186, 
 

[This article is rendered in parts, due to space limitations. DTB]
 
===========================

Best wishes,

Dallas
 
==========================================

-----Original Message-----

From: Perry 
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 8:13 AM
To: 
Subject: Some comparisons

As we are free here in this group to discuss and compare some of the
differences between HPB / Mahatmas teachings and those of CWL perhaps
we can start to look at differences and discuss them as a group and
see if in fact the differences are only cosmetic or philosophically
incompatible.

Maybe the first area to analyse is the subject of God.

CUT