Theos-Talk Archives (February 2006 Message tt00358)

Hello Paul,

In your post of Feb 15, you said, "If HPB's Masters are acknowledged by
scholars to have been real, then the contrast with
CWL's imaginary ones becomes all too glaring." Can you or someone explain
the background to this statement please?

Thanks
Hauw
New student of Theosophy
________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 3            Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:37:35 -0000
>   From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Salience, valence, HPB, and scholars
>
>Here von Egmond is implying, correctly in my view that the
>previous attitude toward HPB among scholars had generally been
>that the Masters were figments of fantasy and that therefore HPB
>herself did not deserve serious attention in terms of studying her
>sources.  Why would Adyar not welcome this?  It undermines the
>unassailable CWL, for one thing.  If HPB's Masters are
>acknowledged by scholars to have been real, then the contrast with
>CWL's imaginary ones becomes all too glaring.
>
>Paul



----------------------------------------------------------
This email has been scanned for viruses by StarHub e.Scan.