RE: Dallas wrote: "I am not interested in the philology [of Devachan]. . . .Be content with your view, and let me be happy with mine. Enough."
Jan 24, 1999 03:50 AM
by Peter Merriott
you wrote the following..
> Now does KH's words throw any light on the subject which
> Rich has been writing about?
> Can one reconcile what KH wrote with what Rich has written in one of
> his previous emails:
> Was Madame Blavatsky as well as the Mahatma KH ignorant
> of what Rich has written on the term "Devachan"?
I wonder if this is a sign that our priorities are becoming reversed? With
due respect to Rich, I don't think our primary task as students of
Theosophy is to reconcile what HPB and Masters have written with Rich's
views, however informative the latter may be.
With regards to the ML letter 69 that you refer to I have suggested in
another post that the student needs to reflect on the esoteric meaning that
KH points to in that letter. The defintion of Chan and Loka is exoteric as
KH points out in his previous sentence therein. That letter, like many of
the writings of HPB and the Masters, offers hints but leaves it to the
student to choose whether to pick up and reflect on the esoteric meaning or
whether to get caught up in the exoteric meaning.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application