Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00099)

This morning I reread letter #10, and this afternoon read #134
as Daniel suggests.  First, about letter 10, I must say that
rereading it I found much to admire and appreciate and
relatively mild disrespect for theism.

It seems we have agreed not to discuss the historical details
of the letters' receipt etc., but to bracket these and focus
only on doctrinal content.  Is this true?  I fear getting
flamed if I share my views on how and why they were written,
but it's hard to discuss the content without the history.

Letter 134 berates the orthodox Hindus with even less
circumspection than number 10 showed for the Christians.
Later, when Olcott and Besant needed to be on the right side of
the Brahmins, they said that HPB had invented or misunderstood
the material in this letter.  That is why it was controversial;
it was repudiated by HSO and AB.

As for anti-Christian bias, I think HPB was somewhat more
fine-tuned than that.  For example, she always had a soft spot
for the Russian Orthodox Church, and was friendly with more
liberal Christians like Spiritualists and Unitarians.  Her ire
was reserved for Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, and Protestant
missionaries.

Later