Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00609)

Rich:
>But I want to ask a psychological question now, and I am truly interested in
>your answer.  If the differences between HPB and many of her later followers
>were purely semantic, and this could be fairly well demonstrated, why do you
>think there is such opposition to these later systems from "purists" (aka
>"fundamentalists") like me?

	I am not saying that the differences are purely semantic.  We
agree that thre are differences.  But I do think that most of them are pure
semantics, and most of the others are small (I have already called them
nit-picks, and they are).  Now, remember, I am talking here only about
the universe model of planes, principles, bodies, and elements (tattvas).
There are lots of other differences, for which I can see your opposition.
	But lets just look at the universe model, for now.  HPBs model
is almost totally theoretical, and it forms the structural framework or
spinal cord for her theories of Rounds and Root Races.  She briefly
compares it to the Tree of Life, but never never advocates what is
called pathworking.  CWLs model, on the other hand, practically calls
out for pathworking.  It encourages it.   His own pathworking helped
define it, under HPBs broad-brush umbrella (and thus the differences).
It is a matter of perspective, but the words chosen in the CWL/AB
model are the result of pathworking, and make pathworking a whole
lot easier than HPB's model.  Just one example:  when we pathwork,
we are clearly in a body of some kind, but there are no "principles"
to be found anywhere.
	If you (or anyone) believes that everything HPB wrote is
gospel, then I would say that you are a fundamentalist.  If you (or
anyone) think that HPB's works and the MLs are the only true
Theosophical literature worth studying, then I would call you a purist.
Now Rich, I don't know if you are either of these things.  But I do
know that ULT and Pasadena have a strong prejudice against
magic, and pathworking is magic.  This, I think, is the real reason
ULT and Pasadena denounce the CWL/AB model.

>  If I actually thought that Leadbetter
>was teaching the same basic substance that HPB was teaching, with just
>slightly difference words, a minor change here or there, a few personal
>touches, why do you think I would not welcome CWL with open arms?
	I think that even if I could convince you that his model follows
HPBs rather closely, you would still not welcome him with opening arms.
ULT and Pasadena oppose CWL because of other things than his
universe model.  His Christianizing of Theosophy, his sexual behaviors,
his Mars descriptions, and so on.  I can't even disagree with them.  But
I don't think his universe model was all that out of line.

>There are a few points that I do not agree with Purucker about, but you will
>NEVER catch me badmouthing him...
	Agreed.  But G de P never described Mars, and he kept his
sex life under control.  He was, however, a racist, as it is defined today
(he would not have been called a racist in his day, but times and definitions
change).  I agree with almost everything he says, but as you say, there
are a few points...

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI