Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00694)

and their roles in Theosophy? I don't really understand that. 
Everyone and everything is secondary to her role and to the 
teachings which she presented to the world. Beating the drum of 
anyone else is superfulous.

I have never been too crazy about either of them, even though Olcott 
was a fan of Besant because of her speaking abilities. Are they too 
claiming original teachings? I never use that phrase, personally, 
because I don't believe in it. The only original anything is the 
experience of the master as He experiences the inner path and at 
some time or place he externalizes those experiences in the world--
by some agent, through some agent or He himself appears as the 
teaching itself as in the case of Jesus. He was the teaching 
externalized.

If this is the source and the reason behind much of HPB's work, as 
she was an advanced chela and not a master at the time, then it 
would deserve the title "original teaching." That is my definition 
of it at any rate.

The bad thing about this is how it does create artificial divisions 
in Theosophy. Did they not study under HPB or her students? Did the 
work they claim to have seen on the astral or wherever add that much 
to the body Theosophy? What would have been the outcome without it? 
Or was it all the result of their Aryan arrogance?

Those are my humble ramblings and thoughts about the subject for 
what they are worth. I do think we are indebted to the work of K. 
Paul Johnson on the Masters. And to people such as Daniel who have 
done so much to keep the writings and life of HPB alive until she 
personally takes up the mantle again. 

Netemara