Theos-Talk Archives (December 1997 Message tt00010)

 Yes, I did ask Bruce why he
>choose to believe Steiner over HPB.  I assume he had good reasons
>for such a choice.* I simply wanted to know what those reasons were.*
>I can't read minds.  And Bruce has the choice whether he wants
>to share those reasons or not.  It is also equally true that I don't care
>whether
>Bruce or Mickey Mouse made the statements, I was interested in the issues
>and "facts" behind the statements.
>
>Bruce stated he believed Madame Blavatsky was deluded (about
>her connections with certain Masters).  This is a serious charge and
>should be carefully considered.  I assume if someone made a
>"negative" comment/charge  about C.W. Leadbeater that you might also
>speak up.

Now, I hope I might also try to comment about one reason people might
believe Steiner is that he was a student of the wisdom to the point that he
also is influenced by teachings of the masters. Are we in touch with
adepts? I think at the level of work he was performing that he was. I think
that most of the members of the T.S. are in touch with adepts and that
many, many, people who have "public" status are also in touch with the
adepts. The adepts use outpourings of light and love to reach every human
being. Some respond and some don't. I also think that it is very helpful if
we are trying to manifest adept qualities through our human vehicles to
"stop" many of the peculiarly human qualities we are so used to seeing and
contacting in those around us, as well as ourselves. If we prevent the
human from acting or we ask the adepts to do this for us, then we are
allowing time and space for the manifestation of the divine.

To defend is certainly an activity of the sacred fire and I admire it. I
don't know if you ever got a chance to look at the book I've been
recommending STUDIES IN THE BHAGAVAD GITA, but in there I found a peculiar
view of delusions and a solution of sorts that perhaps you remember my
commenting upon. The book said that at a certain stage in our karmic
unfoldment, we seek harmony and ultimately unity with divine centers of
being that can not be cognized or perceived in the lower three planes.
These divine centers I picture to be celestial in nature - a point of
light, a sun, or great cosmic being. When we meet this center through
contemplation, we wish very much to participate in its life, but we are
thwarted by the limitations of our existence into states of
miscomprehension, delusion, and perversion of great beings by our mental
and egoic limitations. What the book recommends is that we look around us
at people in the world beside us and develop relationships to the point
that we accept that they, too, have had visions of the divine. Our best
bet, the book states, is to work out our deluded states by comparing what
we "know" with what others know. By doing this we are able to confirm,
reconfirm, refute, etc., all impressions of these divine centers to the
point that we are somewhat less deluded than when we only relied upon our
own single impression.

I thought that this was very good advice and for this reason I don't feel
so insulted or spirited about a simple reference to one person being
deluded. We can try to curve and remake our thinking. Great thing about
thoughts is that they can be redone again and again, refined, and replaced
until they are beautiful, whole, and shining with light.