Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00271)

> >According to Bazzer:
>
> > claimed that she did *not* write them.  One would hope that
> > anyone who claimed HPB was/is a fraud and a liar does not go by
> > the title of "theosophist".
>
> >Think this one over.  Would HPB endorse such an exclusivist
> >attitude?

Not a clue, my friend, her Ego is who knows where and we have to
think for ourselves.

> Didn't she ALWAYS insist that one could disbelieve
>in her and the Masters and still be a Theosophist?

Did she? She said one could be a theosophist without necessarily
wearing the label "theosophist" and that there were more (true)
theosophists outside the Society than in it.  The comment stands
as it is: anyone who considers HPB a liar/fraud can not be a
*theosophist* in the true sense of the term, or, rather, aught
not to label themselves or let other's believe they are.

>  I can think
>of no instance where she was less than hyperemphatic about
>this.  It would be a shame if her and Olcott's devotion to
>making the movement a home for seekers of all varieties should
>be undermined by attitudes like that expressed above.

Truth is One.  It is not and can not be 'open' to debate.  A fact
is a fact.  Human beings may (and invariably will:-)) attach
labels and apply intellectual gymnastics to Truth.  The "shame"
is the various hotch-potch of isms and ologies, anthropomorphic
will o' the whisps, which, having no real substance or life of
their own, suck the life-blood of theo-sophia and claim the
Source as their own.  No doubt the Liberal Catholic Church, for
example, contains some of the variety of seekers, this *religion*
(religion being described as being the cause of 2/3rds of human
misery) founded by a tool of the Opposition (ie CWL) being
largely responsible for the fragmentation and destruction of
HPB's and Master's work.  It is the undermining of *this* work
which should be boldly and fearlessly challenged.  Theosophy
needs thinkers, not sheep.

Kindest regards,

PB