Theos-Talk Archives (October 1999 Message tl00050)

it was written:
> > Then why did they have to choose to be males?  I still do not
> understand
> > why, if they were hidden, a female form wouldn't have served just
> fine.
> >
> >
> > Kym
> >
> Because - surprise! - they were not stupid, and knew where the power
> lay.  Their alleged* writings mention "power" and "powers," both of
> which are methods of control over others.  In the same way we get this
> curious distinction made recently between different "levels" of chelas.
> Poor ol' Sinnett.

> We are the chosen few, there ain't no room in heaven for you ..... [all
> join in ....]

> *Alleged.  I use the term because such exalted beings as the mahatmas
> are supposed to have been would not, in my opinion and from my
> perspective (if I am worthy enough to be allowed one) have descended to
> writing about the intrigues etc. within the TS and its London Lodge.
> Ergo, a) The writers were not mahatmas, or b) mahatmas are not all they
> are cracked up to be, or c) they were written by someone else (singular
> or plural).
I think they were simply not all they were cracked up to
be (in fact they said so). On the other hand, knowing how
emotional and complicated lodge-life sometimes is, it is
not so surprising to me that they were human enough to give
their opinion, which everybody was asking for anyhow.

> Alan the disobedient.
> (I prefer to call it "divine discontent" as this is permitted)
Surely that is permitted :-), everything is permitted. Even
asuming this list is only for western theosophists is
permitted, though the assumption will of course be
questioned.
> :0))))))));-)))))))))))

Katinka
----------------------
NHL Leeuwarden
hesse600@tem.nhl.nl