Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00187)

According to uscap9m9@ibmmail.com:

> 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.

Well, it's between galleys and page proofs, so it's not growing
any more.  It's going to end up around 260 pages compared to
about 290 for the first.  But most of the sources are new.

> 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

This needn't be either/or.  Dan and I are mending things by
email today, and somehow that sort of thing doesn't work very
well when done in public.  But I'm sure we're both willing to
discuss further.  I for one don't want to disrupt the ML
discussion with it, though, which was a real danger.

> The only point where I can see anything dark or destructive
> coming in would be when we feel we've been insulted, and

OR when we feel things and people we hold sacred have been--
which is more likely to be what I get roasted for.

> respond to it (responses being fear--flight--or anger--attack).
> small seeds of discord grow into hateful qualities and
> responses in ourselves, or uproot them early on, while they
> first germinate.

We're working on it.

> it suggests that HPB's teachers were seemingly ordinary
> people that she knew during her life. Is this a challenge to

Well-- not all THAT ordinary.  My findings establish her as
unquestionably well qualified to present in her writings a
synthesis of East and West, religion and philosophy, by virtue of
the international network of teachers/advisors she learned from.
THE most influential reformers of her period in Hinduism,
Sikhism, and Islam and some of the most prominent Masons and
Rosicrucians in Europe and America number among her
teachers/sponsors/advisors (whether or not we accept my calling
them her Masters).

> 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.

Thanks for your thoughts; I hope you enjoy going into the book
in depth.