Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01140)

At 04:34 PM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote:

>	I hate to bring up the m word, but the difference between
>HPB and Helena Blavatsky was pure magic.  HPB was not some external
>Adept working through Blavatsky, but one of her own Higher Selfs.  This
>is traditional magic, and virtually all magicians do this.  In her case,
>she also had external Adepts working through her in a mediumistic
>sense (or tulku as Alexis likes to call it).
>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI
>
>
>Jerry: Fellow member of the gang of five!

"Magic" it was, if "magic" is seen to be any condition outside the
experience of everyday reality. But in regard to the Yelana Blavatsky-H.P.B
diversity, H.P.B. was a male, and Blavatsky was a female. H.P.B. was in
actuality the Adept Narayan, and Mme.. Blavatsky was a very high "Chela" of
not Narayan, but of the Adept known as "M" who was H.R.H. Chandragupta Das
Maurya, Maharajah of Benares. Now the important distinction that Blavatsky,
H.P.B. and I are trying to make is that the state of being known as "Tuklu"
is Shamanistic, but it is conscious shamanism and has no connection at all
to Mediumship which all three of us definitely disapprove of. Try to avoid
Jungian interpretations of things he didn't understand.

alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA.
the eclectic theosophist
satyat - nasti - paro - dharma
Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Tulku
Member: Gang of Five (more always welcome)