Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00186)

In reading the discussion, I can see how there were various
circumstances contributing to Paul leaving out materials from his
latest book.  Looking at the book, it is a great improvement over
the last one.  There's nothing to prevent the trend from
continuing: his next book could be bigger, more inclusive, and
with additional source materials.

I don't think it's productive to second guess anyone's
motivations, either in writing a book, or in reviewing one.  We
can ask the person what was intended, and can leave it at that.

The approach that would be most productive to the theosophical
community would be for the discussion to remain above board
(continue to be posted, rather than by private email), and for
offers of sharing with Paul materials he did not previously have
access to, so that he can improve over what he was able to come
up with on his previous book.

The only point where I can see anything dark or destructive
coming in would be when we feel we've been insulted, and respond
to it (responses being fear--flight--or anger--attack).  If there
is a dark side to life, it comes into our lives uninvited, and
captures our minds and hearts.  We can let small seeds of discord
grow into hateful qualities and responses in ourselves, or uproot
them early on, while they first germinate.

There's always something constructive we can take from the other
person, and that is all we have to respond to.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins is right that the academic world has almost a
dog-eat-dog approach of tearing apart an academic work.  This is
motivated by the desire for maintaining truthfulness, but may
also be applied with especial vigor on works that question the
status quo and are seen as heretical.  When this happens, there
could be two reasons.  Either there are flaws in the work, that
need reexamination, or there are aspects of the work that remain
unappreciated by others because they need reexpression with
greater clarity.  In either case, we go back to our original
presentation, reexamine what we've done with a fresh mind, then
respond based upon our new insight into the matter.

Having only skimmed over the book, I cannot offer but passing
comments on it.  The basic point that I think that many
theosophical students might dislike about the book is that it
suggests that HPB's teachers were seemingly ordinary people that
she knew during her life.  Is this a challenge to the basic
theosophical Teachings? No.  There is still a basic idea of
spiritual evolution, with an endless series of stages of
development and experience awaiting us.  We go from ordinary
people, to pre-Chelas, to Chelas, Masters, and yet higher.  There
is no top-most stage to this progression.  So it's a moot point
*which stage on the scale* we call that held by the Masters,
since there are always higher stages and beings.

-- Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com)