Theos-Talk Archives (July 1998 Message tt00225)

I have been "off-line" for a while since I went to the National TS convention.
I am trying to catch up on the messages.
    Grovert suggested that the "I Am" movement was perhaps an "offshoot" of
Thesophy, and implied that it was not dissimilar to the "neo-Theosophy" of
Besant and Leadbeater.
     This is certainly a possibility.  However, he would have to admit that
all groups that claim allegiance to the Masters are not, in fact, proven to be
under their direct control and guidance merely because of the making of that
claim.  The world of occultism is full of people who make such claims.
"Self-proclaimation" is not proof.
     I can't respond directly to the merits of the "I Am" movement, except to
say that from what I have read of the Ballards and the movement, I am not
convinced that it is in the Theosphical mainstream. On the surface, it appears
to be another variant of esoteric lore mixed with personality, perhaps
analogous to the Hara Krishna's relationship to Hinduism, or the cult of the
Bagwan Ragnish, he of the many Rolls-Royces.
     The esoteric and occult scholar, Manly P. Hall, wrote an excellant book
in the wake of the "New Thought" Movement in the 1920's and 30's, entitled
"Words to the Wise".  In it, he examines and explains the dangers to the well-
intentioned and idealistic seeker posed by the charlatans who take "a little
bit of this and a little bit of that" from the real esoteric groups for their
own selfish purposes.  Of course, they almost invariably claimed to have a
direct line to the Masters, as popularized by Theosophy.  "Self-proclamation
is not proof"
     Given my confession of relative ignorance, I am reminded of the duty
placed upon all seekers to critcally examine their own teachers.  Teachers of
the esoteric are subject to error,  and to wandering "off the Path", but it is
usally due to "blinding" by their own false pride and sense of importance.  In
such circumstances, they are "cut off" from the Masters until they conquer
their own egos.  In the meantime, they become dead ends,  maintaining the
outward appearance but not the substance of the Path.  Gradually, their egos
make them diverge more and more towards a cult of personality.  Such teachers
become tests for their students, who are tested as to whether they can discern
the true exemplar of the Masters from another self-proclaimed false prophet.
If the students cannot tell the difference, they are lead off the Path, still
believing sincerely in their false teacher.  While sincere, they don't know
what they don't know.  Certainly, the followers of the Bagwan Ragnish were
sincere when they took political control of town in which their commune was
located, and they were sincere when they gave him scores of Rolls Royces, and
when they shared his bed.  But they faiiled the test of discernment of the
true teachings and teachers.
      My point here, too-long belabored, is how do we tell the false teacher
who wraps him or herself in the outward trappings of "legitimate" esoteric
teachings [whatever that may be], and claims to be a "further revelation" of
this line, from the charlatan, who founds his own school with  familiar but
false teachings?
     I am not saying that the "I Am" school fits this latter catagory, but
merely that not all who cry "Master, Master" are of him.   Manly Hall tells us
that our duty is to educate ourselves thoroughly in the essential ancient
wisdom so that we have the ability to tell the true from the false.  These are
truly "words to the wise".
    Brant Jackson