Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00351)

I don't think her intention was only for the few.  She may have realized
that at the time there were only a few that could take advantage of the
majority of what she had to say, but with time as others developed their
experience base and vocabulary they could more and more participate.  I
think that as the parable goes, you cast seeds and they will take where the
soil is fertile.  There has been many times that something someone said to
me took ten years or more before I could understand it.  We can only see
things at the level we are conscious, receptive, have experience, etc.
 Water seeks its own level, so if knowledge is water then we must deepen our
vessels of receptivity. IMHO, oh course.

Nick Porreco
Being of Light and Love

> Date: Friday, April 12, 1996 12:19AM
> From: theos-l
> Subject: ReLucifer?

At 04:19 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote:
>In message <m0u6u0g-000JeMC@slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii
><alexei@slip.net> writes
>>I can't begin to tell you how much I hate that "only for the few stuff".
If
>>Blavatsky really believed that, then she was dead wrong!
>
>.. she wrote hundreds of pages of material for a couple of dozen
>people?  Not very likely.  If only a very few could benefit, then Isis
>and the SD would not have been worth a publisher's time and money.
>
>Just my 2 penn'orth.
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>
>Iknow that HPB did'nt believe that "Only for the few" nonsense. Not only do
her two enormous books give it thelie but what about all the reams and reams
and reams of stuff she wrote for lucifer, and the Russian Press, and her
other books? Tht to me, is a clear sign that she was seeking the very widest
possible audience and therefore that she wanted the theosophical movement to
be as large as was possible. If it could have onky had a tiny audience it
wouldn't have been worth her "time and money".

alexis