Theos-Talk Archives (October 2006 Message tt00080)

Carlos,

You write:

===============================================
Esoteric Philosophy teaches us that the name is not the thing -- 
and, obviously, the old outdated portrait of the physical vehicle of 
an adept is not the adept. 

Better get in touch with one's own inner conscience and higher 
self...
===============================================

Well, I think most of us would agree with your statement that "the 
physical vehicle of an adept is not the adept."  HPB even says that 
in more than one place in her writings.

But that statement ["the physical vehicle of an adept is not the 
adept"] was as true in 1890 as it is today in 2006, right?

And when you write in 2006:

"Better get in touch with one's own inner conscience and higher 
self..."

Well, in 1890, wasn't this statement of yours just as true?

Yet it was in the year 1890 H.P.B. decided to allow her esoteric 
students to have copies of the portraits of the Masters for their 
personal use.

At that time there were approximately 1000 students in H.P.B.'s 
Esoteric School.

So my question was and is:

Why was H.P. Blavatsky allowing in 1890 this number of students to
have access and copies of the portraits of the Masters??

In other words, why was HPB allowing her students to have portraits 
of the physical vehicles of the adepts Morya and Koot Hoomi?

You appear to pooh-pooh these "portraits" and you describe them as 
the "old outdated" portraits of the Masters.

But Carlos, in what year did the portraits of the Masters become
"outdated"???

And what do you mean by "outdated" in reference to the portaits of 
the Masters?

But again ----WHY was H.P. Blavatsky allowing in 1890 her ES 
students to have access and copies of the portraits of the Masters 
if all you write at the beginning of this posting is true?

Daniel
http://hpb.cc