Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00353)

Dear Brenda
By reading the correspondence, Daniel comes over as someone who studies the
Theosophy of the Mahatmas (KH & M) and HPB. And for those of us (or some of
us) who study these teachings it is terribly difficult to see your point of
view as being credible. The Mahatmas warn of unprogressed planetaries who
parade under varoius guises, and they are very "real" in some senses. A
main difference between our views is that you seem to somehow feel that we
can bring the Masters down to our level, if one has understood you
correctly, while the Theosophical teachings teach that it is for us to lift
ourselves to their level.
The very word MAHATMA: MAHAT/ATMA would suggest this. A study/meditation of
the SD, does by the very nature of their being behind it (for want of better
words), give contact with the Masters. The SD is imbued with their essence.
There mind and spirit is alive in the secret doctrine.

And in another mail:
>What is the reason for the concept of brotherhood?
On the last page of the original and 2nd editions of the SD only, the first
object of the Theosophical Society is given as:
"I.To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Man, without
distinction of race, colour, sex or creed."
One rendering of many of this is:
To form the nucleus (i.e. MANAS) of a Universal Brotherhood (i.e.
atma-buddhi are the universal principle(s)) of Man, without distinction of
race, colour, sex or creed (i.e. without distinction of the 4 lower
principles). Once the teachings fall into the area of the 4 lower
principles of "race," "colour," "sex," or "creed" they lose their pristine
purity. This is why it is so difficult to see how we can bring the Mahatmas
down.
Best wishes
Tony.

>>Daniel Caldwell replies:
>>
>>Govert, since the death of Madame Blavatsky, there have been
>>dozens of individuals claiming to be in contact with HPB's
>>Masters, . . . claiming to be new messengers from the Mahatmas &
>>. . . claiming to give more and newer esoteric teachings.
>>
>>Do you believe that all these claims are true? That all
>>of these individuals have actually been in contact with
>>Blavatsky's Teachers? Might not fraud or delusion
>>be at the bottom of at least some of these claims?
>>
>>Even in Blavatsky's days, she
>>commented on the claims of those who said they were also in
>>contact with her Masters. The quote is from the KEY TO
>>THEOSOPHY. She speaks of "bogus adepts" and "shams, swindles,
>>and frauds." Pretty strong language from the Old Lady. But if
>>what she said was true & relevant in 1889, is it not just as
>>true & revelant today, if not more so?
>
>What HPB said is fine. We love her for it, because in the great body of
>her textual works
>we make sense of the many facets and sides to her teachings, but why do YOU
>so often take this stance?
>
>Do you intend to throw doubt on their activities in the world today?
>Are you asking people to disbelieve that they are here with us, too, just
>as they were with HPB? Do you wish us to live without contact?
>
>What is YOUR purpose in throwing doubt on OUR contact, OUR love for them,
>OUR interest in seeing their activities come to light in our time and day?
>This is something we may be striving for and I can't grasp that you feel so
>strongly the need to discourage us in this. We long to see them and hear
>them and be with them. We love to see their names and we love to read their
>words and harmonize with their thoughts. Why is this so discouraging to YOU
>and in your correspondence do you take this stance so frequently so that
>you can PROTECT us from wrongdoing? from delusion? or from sounding silly?
> I cannot grasp that you would prefer a world with "NO" contact, "NO"
>attention and virtually "NO" mention of their activities abounding today
>because people ARE living sacredly like HPB taught and we are loving them
>here and inviting them and welcoming their approach and living as if we
>cherish the glimpses and insightful occurrences of their communications
>because there are still many, many, purposes for our association with them
>and hopefully for their association with us.
>
>What do you intend to do with your life?
>