Theos-Talk Archives (July 1997 Message tt00032)

Gail Stevenson:

<<"The great error lies in the assumption that HPB could have
been *both* right and wrong, that the Masters could have
permitted mis-statements of hers to pass uncorrected - allowed
their teachings to be misrepresented to humanity."

HPB did NOT claim infallibility, I do agree.  It is in the rest
of the sentence that the importance lies.  Would Masters permit
their teachings to be misrepresented? It does not imply that
Masters controlled HPB.  To correct a misstatement of philosophy
is not to control another being.  Nor does it suggest that the
Masters are "omniscient or omnipresent or omnipotent." Nor does
that carry forward to Buddha, Plato and Christ.>>


Now this strikes me as a mighty important insight.  Do we really
realize what "infallible" implies? Or "omniscient"? With a
universe on the physical plane only, of trillions of galaxies,
not to mention to ever-expanding higher planes of energy,
consciousness and Be-ness, to be infallible would be omniscience
on a scale never comprehended by any human being.  The Masters
never claimed this kind of omniscience, and HPB certainly did not
either.

But there is a ***HUGE*** gap between omniscience on an
absolutely universal level, and near-perfect knowledge of the
earth and its history and its future.  I think it is fair to
assume that the Masters have something like this kind of
knowledge (I can hear Paul Johnson squeaking up now).  Evolution
alone points to beings far beyond humans in knowledge and
ability.  This isn't "omniscience" or "infallibility" but it *is*
godlike compared to my puny abilities.

So I think Gail has a real point.  Would beings like Masters,
with at least their senior members possessing comprehensive
knowledge of the Earth and its human inhabitants, allow
half-statements and mis-truths to go unchecked through one of
their vehicles? People speak in the name of the Masters all the
time, and I don't know how many people think they are Jesus.  But
HPB was a bona-fide representative of at least two Masters last
century, with independent corroboration from about a dozen people
who saw Them, talked with Them, or received letters from Them.
In essence, the Masters were *RESPONSIBLE* for what she taught in
print and in public as THEIR doctrines, and beings of that
magnitude can hardly be suspected of carelessness in getting
Their message out.

For pretenders and charlatans, the Masters have never been
responsible, nor are They responsible for the fools and moles who
follow them.  But if we are correct in assuming the true nature
and abilities of the Mahatmas, and the nature of their Agent,
i.e.  HP Blavatsky, Gail's point is necessarily correct --
H.P.B.'s teachings are neither just interesting, nor suggestive,
nor one of a group.  They are the direct teachings of the
Masters, all that They chose to give out last century.  To
diminish those teachings is to diminish ourselves and our ability
to participate in the Theosophical movement.

Insofar as HPB was Their agent, our way to Them is through her.
For if we cannot even digest the preliminary teachings and
required lifestyle changes, why would a great Teacher give us
more?