Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00247)

Brenda, on Tuesday, March 24, 1998 1:59 AM you wrote:

>Well, Frank, it's interesting that you are comparing the two
organizations,
>because I am, too. I certainly don't want to contradict anything you
have
>been told already. All of the likenesses of adepts, beings, masters,
and
>humans that I have seen at the temple are paintings and very
stylistic, so
>that when you have seen enough of their art, you can recognize the
style
>repeated again and again. None of them are photographs, so rest
assured
>that you won't need to verify these.

>Correction: There are some photos around of the founders, but I
believe
>that the likenesses of them which hang in the front of the temple are
>paintings (perhaps from photographs).

BRENDA, YOU MAY KINDLY NOTE THAT ONE OF THE OBVIOUSLY FAKED PICTURES
THE I AM
MOVEMENT IS SPREADING AND OF WHICH I OWE A COPY IN MY ARCHIVES
CERTAINLY TRY TO MAKE BELIEVE TO BE AUTHENTIC AND AUTHORIZED. THIS ONE
I MEAN SHOWS  H.P.B. SITTING
IN A CHAIR AND THE THREE MASTERS K.H., M. AND "ST. GERMAIN" ARE
STANDING BEHIND HER.
BELOW IS THIS NOTICE:
    "THIS MAGNIFICENT PICTURE WAS TAKEN IN ADYAR, INDIA ABOUT 85 YEARS
AGO. A PICTURE
    "OF THE GREAT SOUL MADAME BLAVATSKY AND THE THREE MASTERS WITH
WHOM SHE
    "WORKED TO FOUND THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. THESE GREAT ONES ARE
SHOWN AS
    "THEY APPEARED IN THE PHYSICAL AT THAT TIME. READING FROM LEFT TO
RIGHT THEY ARE
    "LORD KUTHUMI, LORD MORYA AND LORD ST. GERMAINE."

>My approach to studying at the I AM Temple may be slightly different
than
>yours. I don't really feel a need to discuss theosophy there.

HUH, VERY SAD, I THOUGHT THEOS-TALK IS AN FORUM FOR DISCUSSION ABOUT
THEOSOPHY...

>I prefer to find out from scratch what their teachings are and only
make my own
>analogies. The Temple is not open to discussion because the writings,
>readings, and dictations are not really "our own," so to speak.

FOR ME ANOTHER EXAMPLE THAT THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL PURE
ANCIENT
WISDOM. H.P.B. AND HER SUCCESSORS ALWAYS EMPHASIZED THAT THIS
TEACHINGS ARE
THE COMMON INHERITANCE OF ALL MANKIND.

>No one is forcing me to study there. I do because I get a great deal
out of my
>association. I go and with very little mention of the books I've read
or
>what I personally think or need proven to me, I just participate and
leave
>feeling much rejoicing and light.

SO DOES ALSO THE THEOSOPHY OF H.P.B. NO ONE IS FORCED FOR BLIND BELIEF
AND
EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHAT HE/SHE LIKES. EVEN THE STUDY OF
THEOSOPHY IS *NOT* RECOMMANDED OR A DUTY TO STUDY IN THE THREE AIMS.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THEOSOPHY ITSSELF HAS
CERTAIN
AND PROOFED TEACHINGS, FOR THEOSOPHY SHOULD NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS A
GENERAL STORE OR SUPERMARKET OR A SYCRETISM AS CHURCHMEN AND AUTHORS
OF DICTIONARIES TRY TO MAKE BELIEF. THEOSOPHY IS RATHER THE
ACCUMULATED
WISDOM EXPRESSED IN A MODERN SYSTEMATIC FORM.

>...

>St. Germain is St. Germain

>We just have to listen to what is said.
>I know St. Germain is viewed as an ascended master and I don't
believe HPB
>is viewed as one. Does this answer your question?
>Brenda

MMMH. SORRY, BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I SENSED FROM OUR FORMER
DISCUSSION THAT YOU PERHAPS HAVE ANOTHER ST. GERMAIN IN MIND THAN I
DO. THEREFOR MY QUESTION
WHY DO YOU REFER HIM AS A MASTER AND H.P.B. DID NOT REFER HIM A MASTER
(MY APOLOGIES
FOR A LITTLE MISUNDERSTANDING FROM THIS MY QUESTION BASED ON MY BAD
ENGLISH.
MY QUESTION SHOULD NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT H.P.B. WAS HERSELF A
MASTER, BUT RATHER WHY H.P.B. DON'T DESCRIBED ST. GERMAIN AS A MASTER.
ALSO THE PERHAPS GREATEST AUTHORITY ON H.P.B., HER GRAND-NEPHEW BORIS
DE
ZIRKOFF UNDERLINES THIS FACT IN HIS OUTSTANDING MONUMENTAL BCW WHEN HE
SAYS:

    "IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT PRECEDES, IT IS HIGHLY INADVISABLE AND
HISTORICALLY
    "UNJUSTIFIABLE TO SPEAK OF THE OCCULTIST DE SAINT-GERMAIN AS BEING
"THE MASTER,
    "PRINCE RAKOCZY," AS HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY DONE BY VARIOUS STUDENTS
OF THEO-
    "SOPHY AND GROUPS OF STUDENTS WITHIN [TO SAY IT MILDY - HE MEANS
THE IMPOSTORS
    "AND FAKERS A.B., A.A.B. AND C.W.L.] AND OUTSIDE OF THE ORGANIZED
THEOSOPHICAL
    "MOVEMENT, EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF LISTING HIS FORMER
INCARNATIONS..." (BCW III, 525).

SO ST. GERMAIN IS ST. GERMAIN? THE ONE OF H.P.B. OR THE INVENTION OF
PSEUDO-
THEOSOPHY? WHY USING A FAMOUS NAME OF A REAL PERSON FOR AN ALLEGED
"MASTER"?
A PR-GAG? A TRY TO ATTRACT ATTENTION?
IN HER REMARKABLE ARTICLE "ON PSEUDO-THEOSOPHY" H.P.B. WARNS THE
SERIOUS STUDENT:

    „If the „false prophets of Theosophy“ are to be left untouched,
the true prophets will be very soon –
    "as they have already been – confused with the false“ (BCW XI,
45).

>P.S. An ascended master is a being who belongs to the next kingdom of
>nature, in my mind. Similar to the thought that we are no longer
animals,
>although our physical and astral natures are sometimes akin to
animal.

HUH! EXCUSE ME, BUT FOR ME JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF TWO DIFFERENT
TEACHINGS.
WHAT IS  NOW AN "ASCENTED MASTER"? IN THEOSOPHY WE HAVE SURELY
MASTERS, BUT
THEY ARE NOT ASCENDED (TO WHERE?). SOUNDS MORE LIKE BAILEY.
THE THEOSOPHICAL MASTERS WHO ARE THE REAL FOUNDERS OF THE T.S. AND THE
TEACHERS OF SERIOUS, TESTED, TRUSTED, PLEGDED AND ACCEPTED CHELAS
DON'T BELONG
TO "THE NEXT KINGDOM", BUT TO OUR KINGDOM, AS THEY ARE MEN - LIVING
MEN.

AND IN THE "SECRET DOCTRINE" AND ELSEWHERE IS DESCRIBED THAT THE MEN
NEVER
(NEVER AT ANY TIME!) WERE ANIMALS. ANIMALS BELONG TO A KINGDOM OF
THEIR OWN.
SO IT LOOKS A LITTLE STRANGE FOR ME, THAT YOU IN THE TEACHINGS YOU
FOLLOW (AND,
YOU MAY KINDLY NOTE, OF WHAT YOU SELF-EVIDENTLY HAVE ANY RIGHT FOR)
YOU ARE
EXCLUDING THE MASTERS AND INCLUDING THE ANIMALS TO THE HUMAN KINGDOM.

>I think your objection arises from the fact that St. Germain took
>incarnation in the 17th? and 18th? centuries. So this makes him human
in
>your mind. Of course, this is the familiar likeness we have of St.
Germain,
>so why not keep the likeness. We can change our likenesses
incarnation from
>incarnation. The story at the temple isn't that he took incarnation
in
>America anyway, but that he worked "through" his messengers, the
founders,
>the Ballards.

SEE MY NOTES ABOVE.

>...

BRENDA, I THANK YOU FOR COMMUNICATION WITH ME AND I EVER THOUGHT THAT
IT WAS
OF MUCH WORTH. YOU MAY ECXUSE MY BAD ENGLISH.
BEST WISHES, FRANK

P.S.: BRENDA, YOU ONCE DESCRIBED H.P.B. TO BE A MEDIUM, WHICH I
DENIED. I HAVE
SEARCHED FOR A FEW QUOTATIONS OF WHICH I GIVE HERE TWO TO MAKE MY
POINT
OF VIEW A LITTLE BIT CLEARER:

    1. "I DEFY THE WHOLE WORLD TO BRING ONE SINGLE RESPECTABLE
EYEWITNESS TO THE
        "FACT THAT I HAVE EVER "PRACTISED" AS A SPIRITIST MEDIUM, AT
ANY TIME OF MY LIFE,
        "OR EVEN GIVEN SEANCES." (BCW XI, 423)

    2. "WHEN I AM DEAD AND GONE PEOPLE WILL, PERHAPS, APPRECIATE MY
DISINTERESTED
        "MOTIVES. I HAVE PLEGDED MY WORD TO HELP PEOPLE ON TO TRUTH
WHILE LIVING AND---
        "WILL KEEP MY WORD. LET THEM ABUSE AND REVILE ME. LET SOME
CALL ME A MEDIUM
        "AND A SPIRITUALIST, AND OTHERS AN IMPOSTOR. THE DAY WILL COME
WHEN POSTERITY
        "WILL LEARN TO KNOW ME BETTER." (BCW I, 73; DANIEL CALDWELL:
THE OCCULT WORLD
        OF MADAME BLAVATSKY, 298)

THERE CAN NOT BE TWO TRUTHS. TRUTH IS ONE. THEREFOR WE CAN NOT HAVE
TWO THEOSO-
PHIES. THEOSOPHY IS ALSO ONE. IN H.P.B.'S TIME THE CHELAS WERE WARNED
AGAINST
PSEUDO-THEOSOPHY, IN K.T.'S TIME THE CHELAS WERE WARNED AGAINST
NEO-THEOSOPHY.
WHEN I NOW LOOK IN WHICH WAY THE MAJOR PART OF THE NEW AGE MOVEMENT
AND NOT A
LITTLE PART OF THE PRESENT THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT IS RUNNING, MAINLY
BASED ON
THE INCREASING TIDAL WAVE OF PSYCHISM I SERIOUS FEAR OF A FURTHER
DEGRADATION
INTO .... TRASH-THEOSOPHY.

SHOULD IT NOT BE THE DUTY OF ALL STUDENTS OF THEOSOPHY TO KEEP THEIR
DOCTRINES
PURE AND UNALTERED? FREE FROM FAKINGS AND MERELY HUMAN KNOWLEDGE (THIS
PART
MAY PRESERVED FOR ORGANISATIONS LIKE THE ANTHROPOS. SOC. OR THE LCC)
AND FREE
FROM SYNCRETISM.
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION THIS IS WHAT WE OWE H.P.B.
FRANK