Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00096)

The questions posed by D. Caldwell via two Correspondents raised some
interesting issues and responses.  JHE shed a fair amount of light in this
area which I was unaware of, such a Judge "de-classifying" certain documents,
motivations of Trevor Barker and B. de Z., etc.

If there is an ethical question involved with respect to the dissemination of
the ML's and ES material, it is good to have all the background information
so that anyone approaching these materials can make their own assessments.
 For example, knowing the history of the publications and the publishing of
each of them allows any student to know the historical decisions made in the
process of publishing and the ethical questions which were faced.  It does
not seem fair to students to present the ML's without the information that,
either M or KH, forbid, in the letters themselves, them to be published.  I
don't see the violation of personal privacy to be so much the issue as the
prohibition.

Regarding the ES and Inner Group material, it would be good to introduce any
work containing these with perhaps a brief history,  the rules expected of
members and the other writings of HPB stating what the requirements were for
someone on this particular path.  That there were prohibitions and
restrictions indicates that there must be some reason.  Let the future
readers know this so that an informed decision can be made.  Then each one
should, as HPB says, bow your head in the forum of your own judgement.

One thing I did not understand at all.  Jerry S. writes:
>Personally I find that idea of a
>group of students who bend over backwards to be morally upright as
>entirely opposed to the spirit of occultism.   HPB would probably giggle.

This runs exactly counter to what HPB taught repeatedly, and I ask if you
could clarify the basis for your comment and especially explain why you think
she would giggle.

Greg Hoskins