Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00175)

Govert Schuller wrote:

>That would be fine if one had already chosen HPB as the most or more
>reliable source. I am not convinced she is. This leaves me in the >position to juggle with mainly the ‘theosophies’ of Blavatsky, >Leadbeater, Ballard and Prophet.

Daniel comments:

But why leave out the 'theosophies' of Alice Bailey, Rudolf Steiner,
William Judge, G. de Purucker and others?

But I am curious: why do you say that you are not convinced that HPB is
"the most or more reliable source"? In other words, what is your
thinking and reasoning behind this statement?

And you fail to mention THE MAHATMA LETTERS. What is your view on
their reliability?

Daniel

Govert Schuller wrote:
>
> Responding to Jerry Hejka-Ekins on the following:
>
> 1) Masters taking over HPB’s vocal chords.
>
> 2) Corporeality of the Masters.
>
> 3) Compatibility of different theosophies.
>
> 1) Masters taking over HPB’s vocal chords.
>
> Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
>
> “I understand Barborka's use of the word Tulku in application to HPB, but
> even here, I have seen nothing in HPB's writings, Olcott's observations, or
> the Mahatma letters that suggests that they ever took over her vocal cords.
> Can you give an instance where such a thing happened?”
>
> No. I thought I had read in one of the postings that HPB was sometimes used
> by the Masters as a conscious medium in the way that they would be speaking
> through her. Whether to establish if she ever was ‘overshadowed’ or not in
> this way is less a point than the possibility of this phenomenon itself.
> Cyril Scott and Leadbeater witness about this. Some theosophists in the 20s
> discussed about K being overshadowed or not. I have been present at
> dictations given by different Masters through Mrs. Prophet with the effect
> that I am thoroughly convinced of the possibility of this phenomenon and of
> the authenticity of Prophet’s ‘channeling.’
>
> I vividly remember the first time it really struck me that Prophet was
> genuine. This was during a Summit Lighthouse conference in Lisbon,
> Portugal. The first dictations had some impact on me, but because of the
> veil in my consciousness created by all kinds of expectations and images the
> experience became somewhat blurred. During the third dictation I was not
> present in the theater where the dictation took place, but I was in the hall
> as an ‘outside usher’ and was able to hear the message. The program had
> indicated that the Ascended Master Jesus would address us. Initially I was
> not giving much attention and was more enjoying the peace and quiet of the
> empty but sun-lit hallway. In this state of mind, without expectations and a
> minimum of images going through my head, I suddenly tuned into the meaning
> of the words spoken. What I heard was so deep, so wise, so enveloping and
> loving that my mind and soul were immediately transported to a higher realm
> of consciousness. My senses still informed me that I was where I was, but my
> awareness was of the level of divine wisdom and I realized I was listening
> to Jesus actually speaking. It was not Mrs. Prophet, though it was her
> voice, but it was the sweet and stern Adept of Galilee. I would deny myself
> if I would deny my conviction that this was genuine. That I had a personal
> and most intimate experience of listening to a Master taking over the vocal
> cords of a physical human being.
>
> 2) Corporeality of the Masters.
>
> I quoted HPB in the following way:
>
> “Both Masters [M. and K.H.] took their fifth initiation, the Ascension, at
> the close of the last century, thereby becoming incorporeal Ascended
> Masters. And as Blavatsky has written--referring to other saints, that,
> when “unburthened of their terrestrial tabernacles, their freed souls,
> henceforth united forever with their spirits, rejoin the whole shining host,
> which is bound together in one spiritual solidarity of thought and deed, and
> called the ‘anointed,’ ”--the same glad tidings could be told, not only
> about these two illustrious Masters, but also about many other brave souls
> who followed them. [H.P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled (Pasadena CA:
> Theosophical University Press, 1976), II, p. 159]”
>
> Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
>
> “Since ( as you suggest here) the I AM doctrines teach that the Masters
> Ascended at the turn of the century, they are in a very different state than
> what HPB experienced concerning them. Therefore, I can understand that given
> their own contexts, the Ballards would then become "channelers" of the
> Masters, where HPB worked with them as physical people. On the other hand,
> how the above quote from ISIS helps your (their) case escapes me. At best
> its reading is
> ambiguous.”
>
> For me the argument of the whole paragraph is rather unclear. Nevertheless
> the paragraph contains some statements which are by themselves quite clear.
> I thought the quote I used belongs to that category. I used it to indicate
> that HPB herself writes about advanced souls who have permanently united
> with their spirit and have no earthly bodies anymore. This idea comes very
> close to the idea of the Ascension as put forward by Ballard and Prophet.
> It even comes so close that I feel comfortable to say that what HPB calls
> the “anointed” Prophet would call it the “ascended.”
>
> 3) Compatibility of different theosophies.
>
> I wrote: "my personal experience is that my understanding of the Secret
> Doctrine has considerably deepened since I have read many of the works
> coming through the Ballards and Prophet. And other way around."
>
> Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote
>
> “I'm sure it has. However, the deepening would depend upon the extent to
> which the two systems are in philosophical agreement. Conversely, the extent
> to which they are not in agreement, would lead to misunderstandings and
> confusions between the two systems…. . A better approach would be to first
> gain a mastery of Blavatsky's writings without comparing them to later
> theosophies. Then, use those writings as a test to determine the
> compatibility of the later theosophies to Blavatsky's.”
>
> That would be fine if one had already chosen HPB as the most or more
> reliable source. I am not convinced she is. This leaves me in the position
> to juggle with mainly the ‘theosophies’ of Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Ballard
> and Prophet. When I find discrepancies I can do the following: a) suspend
> judgement, b) try to explain the difference by studying deeper, c) make a
> choice and pick that version which harmonizes best with my own
> understanding, d) choose one theosophy as the standard or e) go through a
> paradigm shift and perceive all these theosophies as the best opium for
> intellectualsand get high on all of them. Mostly I combine a, b and c. For
> example in my paper about
> Krishnamurti (Krishnamurti and the World Teacher Project) I have tried to
> present academically as many different theosophical perceptions of K as I
> could find. Although I had come already to a certain conclusion about K,
> getting involved in consistent and compelling alternative perceptions forced
> me sometimes to suspend judgement. It also was a big puzzle, which solution
> only could come nearer by studying more and more. In the end the whole
> process had deepened my personal convictions which I later wrote down in my
> two pamphlets about K and the Masters.
>
> Thanks for challenging me
>
> Govert
>
>