Letter to a Correspondent from Renée Hall, National Secretary
(Correspondent in bold)

Thank you for your letter dated 16 September 2005. Firstly let me say that while I respect your right to skepticism and questioning, your concerns don't altogether fit with the compassionate and inspiring magnitude of these teachings. The Sunrise to which you refer is a celebration of HPB and her teachings . The anniversary of her death on May 8th 1891 is often recognised with a special tribute. The issue also coincides with the TUP publication by Vernon Harrison H.P. Blavatsky and the SPR. Hence the theme and emphasis of the contributions which reflect and develop the editorial theme i.e. Prologue by G.F.K.

" .....In this issue space allows us to explore only a small portion of the richness of her nature and gift to humanity. Several articles confront some of the unfounded charges against her character and truthfulness that have continued to circulate over the years. Perhaps the most significant contribution is the "Comments by her Teachers " which hint at the mystery behind HPB and the inner and outer connection with the source of her wisdom [italics added]." p.162

You say that "Many contributors seem to be defensive of HPB for being utterly unfit for a true adept."

The entire letter from which you lift your quote above on page 204 of the Sunrise in question is worth discerning study and needs to be understood in context.. It explains the "enigma", and misunderstanding which arises when her personality is confused with her individuality. One needs to distinguish between the duality of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky and HPB .

Do you not think that H.P.B's courageous and magnificent restatement of perennial philosophy, not to mention the unfounded charges against her character are wholly worth examining , or as you say, "defending"?

I am at a loss to know who can distinguish between a mediator and medium? Who can be so sure?

A clear and certain answer to this question will, indeed, can only come from your own discernment. Even some knowledge of H.P.B's teachings and purpose reveals that she championed altruism and living in our better nature. Do you not accept H.P.B's own statement that she was not a medium? Do you not think that mediumship is against all she stood for and taught at great sacrifice to her personal self ?

The article entitled HPB: Catalyst for Self-Discovery confirms this, particularly in the last paragraph : "To understand her we are forced not to judge by appearances, not to accept any authority above our own inner touch stone of truth. And when we touch this inner source, the study of her writings leads us ever closer to the brotherhood of life: to the self we share with all our fellow beings."

I was somewhat disconcerted to read definitions of psychic powers, clairaudience, clairvoyance, and occultism that are extremely critical of people who apparently do not adhere to the opinions of Theosophists.

You don't identify the source of these definitions but tacitly, Theosophical definitions are explained from the point of view of Occultism or Divine Wisdom i.e. the Truth and Reality behind the inner workings of Nature. H.P.B's teachings, present universal truths to the extent of our present capacity of understanding.

Psychic powers, clairaudience, clairvoyance (the words are common place in our modern vocabulary) are part and parcel of our human nature. Many people are already experiencing the glimmerings of these faculties in varying degree. In the future and natural course of evolution these senses will become fully developed and commonly functional . But at present their separate and deliberate cultivation is dangerous and not conducive to spiritual attainment. Understanding all parts of our human nature is a privileged advantage to know ourselves and therefore better help others. If we accept that these teachings come from higher minds than the transmitters then surely the responsibility of warning the innocent and ignorant of indulgence and misuse of these innate powers is mandatory. In the same vein it would be terribly irresponsible if adults did not warn and protect children from obvious dangers of which they' re oblivious. The definitions you call extremely critical ..... are rather, objectively factual and benevolently comprehensive.

No one apart myself can possibly know my truth. Nor can I know another's truth. I am eager to learn but I will not be taught to criticise what others believe however much I may personally disagree with their methods.

Do you not think that trying to understand another's truth can enrich or qualify your own truth ? After all, "no man is an island."

The inference that theosophy is teaching you to criticise what others believe is interesting. The fourth objective of the T.S. to study ancient and modern religion, science, and philosophy can be viewed in the light of the Greek origin of critic i.e. "judge" or "decide" added to which is the Oxford Dictionary definition of criticism which includes the definition expressing an analytical evaluation of something. The essence of scholarship is surely analytical evaluation. This is not the same as finding fault. Why do you feel that the criterion of judgment and critical examination should not also apply to theosophical research?

An extract contributed by Cmd Robert Bowen in An Invitation to the Secret Doctrine may also be of some help to you. His reported notes on H.P.B's advice about reading The Secret Doctrine can be applied to all theosophical studies. Have a look at page 5 of this slim booklet about the carving out of new "brain paths".

Obviously you will make up your own mind but I do hope these few pointers will help your perspective.