Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00255)

Frank,

Here is the rest of my reply to your comments.

>>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.

HPB never gave a list of all of the masters. What I learned from the study
of theosophy was that there were 60-70 masters within the occult hierarchy
with responsibilities on earth. She never named all of them, so what's
wrong with thinking St. Germain is a master? HPB gave historical
information, is this what you are saying? Well, the St. Germain of today
has been active with the founding of a temple and the activity of the
temple. HPB could not have known this St. Germain, because he created this
activity during this century. This group which studies his teachings, read
and listen to his words. He is considered an ascended master by many
thousands of students around the world. HPB never reported on this because
it occurred after the time of her life. So where is your argument? The St.
Germain I am speaking of is VERY different from the St. Germain in HPB's
time. He is loved and aspired to by many.

>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?

>>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 have not excluded the masters and included the animals. Where do you get
this idea?

Don't you believe and teach progressive evolution of the kingdoms of
natures? Don't you teach that as the life evolves it reaches a point of
entrance into the kingdom which is next in line and more advanced than the
prior kingdom? Don't you teach that minerals evolve into plants, plants
evolve into animals, animals into men, men into masters, etc.? What could
be objectionable about this teaching?

>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:

You are wrong about my having described HPB in my discussion of mediums.
Your quotes relate her feelings about mediumship, but this has nothing to
do about what I have said. You are accusing me of things because that is
probably the way you desire to study theosophy. Do you get enjoyment from
accusing others falsely? How dare you accuse me of any such belief without
quoting my exact words?

>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.

It's not theosophy at all. The new age is the divine plan unfolding. These
people are having grand experiences of their life being related to beings
that exist on higher planes. Some of the work is very inspirational and
some isn't.

>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

It's not in the three objects that we are obligated to do this. I enjoy the
teachings in the hands of the masses, myself, and prefer to value their
interpretation for what it is, a stage on the road to adeptship.

Brenda