Theos-Talk Archives (June 1997 Message tt00008)

According to Richtay@aol.com:
>
> I would tend to go with the third option you suggested, that HPB was right,
> there are/have been one (or more) "Messengers", and Theosophists as a whole
> have missed him/her/them.  I find this the least surprising and most likely
> scenario given history.
snip
>
> HPB did NOT say that a Messenger was going to be sent to the Theosphists.
>  Find me that reference !

The passage in The Key to Theosophy quoted before implies that
the messenger would make him or herself known to the
Theosophists, which is not the same as coming *only* to them.
How could Theosophists rally round this person unless s/he
claimed to be HPB's successor, etc.?

> So I am not at all dismayed that I personally have no name on which to hang
> the title of "messenger."  Perhaps the cycle wasn't right for one single
> Adept to come and announce him or herself.

If there's anything to the idea of the Aquarian age, the cycle
is right for transcending the whole master/slave mentality
implicit in hierarchical spirituality.  Thus a single
messenger would definitely be out of synch, as would justifying
one's work by claiming to be sent by authorities.

> Surely we don't expect the messenger(s) to seize the world stage and direct
> all attention to himself or herself?  Would that be effective today?  Rather,
> I say look to the small bands of people accomplishing change today and ask
> who is at their head?  There we may find Mahatmas today.

Not necessarily small bands.  When asking which individuals
have wielded the greatest positive influence to change
societies dramatically in a nonviolent way, and align them more
with true values, the names that come to me are Mandela and
Gorbachev.  (No flames please.)

Cheers
Paul