Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00226)

According to Richtay@aol.com:
>
> Paul,
>
> Most of the "claimants" you mention are so clearly cranks. I mean, ELIZABETH
> CLARE PROPHET? come on!
>
> Why give these silly folks more air time?

Objective, scholarly discussion of them isn't necessarily "air
time." The sillier ones collapse of their own weight, but are
well known enough to merit inclusion.
>
> Why not focus on the serious Theosophical traditions today, comparing their
> approaches, philosophies, practical works, thoughts on the future. You could
> include Anthroposophy, Roerichs, etc. too. That's a project we could ALL
> cooperate on, and it wold do more practical good than reviewing the history
> of "claimants."

My network of potential collaborators is much more outside
Theosophical ranks than within it. And I don't expect much
Theosophical support for such a book. Thus a diverse coverage
better reflects the situation of the writers and potential
editor.

PJ