Re:The Ascended Masters
Apr 09, 1998 01:39 PM
by Bjorn Roxendal
Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
> 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.
Jerry, just want to thank you for your open and nonjudgmental attitude. At least
you don't join the crowd that is dismissing ECP or other teachers because of bad
press, rumors and the like.
For me, the outer attributes of colors lighting etc never was an issue, probably
because I read some Summit Lighouse books and listened to tapes of dictations
etc before I made any more visual contact. Primarily I listened to the
dictations, at a time when my English was quite inadequate, and received the
radiation and the stream of consciousness that came through them. Coming from a
background of eastern teachings and meditation I was somewhat sensitive to
different levels of "vibrations" and was struck by the intensity and uplifting
as well as transformative action of what was coming through these tapes. Quite
frankly, I have never, before or after experinced any spiritual outpouring that
comes even close.
> > 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
> > Thanks for challenging me
> My pleasure.
* To UNSUBSCRIBE and for other KOF list commands:
* Report KOF list problems to
firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application