Hi all off you,

Well, some afterthought makes me email again.
The big smile has changed...

*******
Daniel Caldwell wrote:
"There is enough metaphysics, occult information, practical advise, ethical
counsel, devotional material, spiritual exercises, etc. in HPB's and the
Masters' writings to last most of us a lifetime or two!

Furthermore, why did the Masters want HPB to write all of this material if
it was to be superseded and supplanted within a relatively short period of
time by the writings of Bailey, Judge, de Purucker, Besant, Leadbeater,
Ballard, etc.? "
*******

I can't agree on that angle presented here by Caldwell; (although it may be
unintentionally).
This is what I don't get:
We all know, that H. P. Blavatsky didn't fancy any biblestudy of any sort
her own books included !
And we can all read - the following - in "The Key to Theosophy" (Section 2;
and 2nd question) by H. P. Blavatsky:

"ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides
Buddhistic ethics?

THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no philosophy in
particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, it must be
stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is divided into
Exoteric and Esoteric Sections. "

So the words - 'There is enough' - in the above, doesn't ring by bells.

The same goes for this one.
Daniel Caldwell wrote:

"And with so many individuals claiming to be messengers of the Masters, why
not study HPB's writings and use the criteria to be found in her teachings
to test whether later claims and teachings are consistent or not, true or
false? [In his article Theosophy's Shadow, Nicholas Weeks used this method
of comparison and contrast on the claims and teachings of Alice A. Bailey.]
"

When did Nicholas Weeks ever do such a thing in his article?
Could anyone enlighten me on that ?

My opinion is that Nicholas Weeks never did use the quote by H. P. Blavatsky
in "The Key to Theosophy" (Section 2; and 2nd question):

"ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides
Buddhistic ethics?

THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no philosophy in
particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, it must be
stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is divided into
Exoteric and Esoteric Sections. "

On these issues I most certainly will have to disagree with Caldwell. At
least for the time being.


from
M. Sufilight with a strange smile...









----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <comments@...>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:26 AM
Subject: Theos-World Madame Blavatsky and the Latter-Day Messengers of the
Masters


> Some readers on this forum may be interested in the following article:
>
> Madame Blavatsky and the Latter-Day Messengers of the Masters
> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/contradictionslatermessengers.htm
>
> Daniel H. Caldwell
>
> Visit BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES at:
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm
>
> "...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things
> at their right value; and unless a judge compares
> notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a
> correct decision."
> H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>