Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00186)

--------------A30A6A5D78BE68131BD2F79F

Govert Schuller wrote:

> Responding to Jerry Hejka-Ekins on the following:
>
> 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.’
>

"Overshadowed" in HPB's usage was usually a reference to a nirmanakaya. You
will find some material on this in the Voice of the Silence. Blavatsky wrote
Judge once saying that he was overshadowed by a nirmanakaya but was not aware of
it. You might also look at the Bowen pamphlet "How to Study Theosophy" where
Robert Bowen remarks that while she was lecturing to her Inner during those last
days, she seemed to be overshadowed. There are other similar remarks. But none
of them suggest that some entity was speaking through her vocal cords. I've
seen this kind of thing at the Spiritualistic gatherings that used to go on in
Los Angeles. A "medium" would ascend the stage on a stage and suddenly start
speaking in an Irish accent or something. Maybe in a few minutes he would
change and start speaking in a 17th century English dialect ect. I have seen no
record of Blavatsky ever having done anything like this.

> 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.
>

I have not heard Mrs. Prophet in person, though I have heard tapes and seen
videos. I respect your experience and have met others who have said much the
same thing. For me, I'm afraid that I can't get past the staging, lighting,
professional color schemes, and what sounds to me like mythological history.
Perhaps a future experience will change my mind.

> 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.
>

However, my explication (which you edited out) was to show that the entire
paragraph was not only clear but consistent. I was trying to demonstrate that
she was talking about the merging with the universal principle. When that
happens, individuality vanishes. I think HPB's discussion on Avataras and
nirmanakayas will better fit what you are trying to establish.

> 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.

Correct. But they are also with individualities.

> 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.”
>

No, the "anointed" has to do with Atma--the Christos (not Jesus). Again, look
at nirmanakayas. Here I think you will find more compatible ground upon which
you can build the Ascended Master idea.

> 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.

No. The object of my suggested methodology would be towards discerning the
reliability. The reason for reading Blavatsky first is not based upon the
assumption that she is more reliable, but that her writings are earlier than
Prophets and the Ballards.

> I am not convinced she is.

Nor am I trying to convince you that 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.

"b" carries the assumption that the systems are in harmony. "a" is what I do
until I get a grasp upon the systems, but isn't very productive if you never
allow your own sense of discrimination pull you in one direction or another.
"c" carries the assumption that your understanding is correct. That's OK too,
as long as your understanding is always subject to revision.

> 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.
>

Yes, and IMO, such a study is more valuable for the process than the
conclusions.

> Thanks for challenging me
>

My pleasure.

jhe

--------------A30A6A5D78BE68131BD2F79F

Govert Schuller wrote:
Responding to Jerry Hejka-Ekins on the following:

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.’

"Overshadowed" in HPB's usage was usually a reference to a nirmanakaya.
You will find some material on this in the <I>Voice of the Silence</I>.
Blavatsky wrote Judge once saying that he was overshadowed by a nirmanakaya
but was not aware of it. You might also look at the Bowen pamphlet
"How to Study Theosophy" where Robert Bowen remarks that while she was
lecturing to her Inner during those last days, she seemed to be overshadowed.
There are other similar remarks. But none of them suggest that some
entity was speaking through her vocal cords. I've seen this kind
of thing at the Spiritualistic gatherings that used to go on in Los Angeles.
A "medium" would ascend the stage on a stage and suddenly start speaking
in an Irish accent or something. Maybe in a few minutes he would
change and start speaking in a 17th century English dialect ect. I have
seen no record of Blavatsky ever having done anything like this.
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.

I have not heard Mrs. Prophet in person, though I have heard tapes and
seen videos. I respect your experience and have met others who have
said much the same thing. For me, I'm afraid that I can't get past
the staging, lighting, professional color schemes, and what sounds to me
like mythological history. Perhaps a future experience will change
my mind.
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.

However, my explication (which you edited out) was to show that the entire
paragraph was not only clear but consistent. I was trying to demonstrate
that she was talking about the merging with the universal principle.
When that happens, individuality vanishes. I think HPB's discussion
on Avataras and nirmanakayas will better fit what you are trying to establish.
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.
Correct. But they are also with individualities.
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.”

No, the "anointed" has to do with Atma--the Christos (not Jesus).
Again, look at nirmanakayas. Here I think you will find more compatible
ground upon which you can build the Ascended Master idea.
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.
No. The object of my suggested methodology would be towards discerning
the reliability. The reason for reading Blavatsky first is not based
upon the assumption that she is more reliable, but that her writings are
earlier than Prophets and the Ballards.
I am not convinced she is.
Nor am I trying to convince you that 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.
"b" carries the assumption that the systems are in harmony. "a" is
what I do until I get a grasp upon the systems, but isn't very productive
if you never allow your own sense of discrimination pull you in one direction
or another. "c" carries the assumption that your understanding is
correct. That's OK too, as long as your understanding is always subject
to revision.
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.

Yes, and IMO, such a study is more valuable for the process than the conclusions.
Thanks for challenging me

My pleasure.

jhe

--------------A30A6A5D78BE68131BD2F79F--