Frank,

You write:

"So, we have the ironically (if not tragically)
situation that the dead-letter interpreters of
HPB, who misunderstood her (until today?), claim
they follow HPB, although HPB always fighted
against dead letter-interpretations."

But a SIMILAR kind of argument has also been
used by many students of Bailey or Leadbeater, etc...

I have had correspondence with several students of
Leadbeater who say I just don't have the
necessary "understanding." If I did, I would see
things differently about Leadbeater's teachings.

Or one student of Bailey said Nicholas Weeks who
wrote an article on Bailey just didn't have the
"intuition" to see that Bailey and her teachings
were a natural development of Blavatsky and her
teachings. Or that some of Cleather/Crump objections
to Bailey were merely "legalistic"....

And you use the "dead letter-interpretations"
argument to support your view about GdeP.

Interesting....

Daniel