Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00125)

>Jerry Schueler commented:
>
>> This can be taken two ways: an exoteric "association" of physical
>> Adepts and an esoteric one such as the Brotherhood of Compassion
>> as described by G de Purucker. I am quite convinced that she was
>> of the latter. Whether of the former (a physical group of living Adepts)
or
>> not I am sceptical and don't much care one way or another.
>
>Daniel Caldwell replies:
>
>It is not clear to me what would be the real difference between an
>"exoteric" association and an "esoteric" one in this context.
>

The difference lies in what is usually called initiation. With exoteric
organizations, initiations are outward symbolic rituals. With esoteric
organizations, they are inward deep and profound experiences
accompanied by meaning and insight. The idea that HPB was
physically initiated in Tibet by Adepts mean little to me, for
example. But her works indicate to me that she underwent inner
esoteric intiations, and I find this to be much more meaningful.



>You seem skeptical of "a physical GROUP of living adepts."  Paul Johnson
>and others also seem skeptical of an association of physical adepts.  I
>really don't see what is so unbelievable in such a view.  It would be
>understandable coming from a non-Theosophist or a person with
>anti-theosophical views, but to theosophists who accept many
>"unorthodox" things, it is hard to see what is so difficult about
>believing in an organized association of adepts.
>

I have a lot of experience with organizations. I have an MSA, for one
thing and have been in many of them both large and small. I know how
they work. I am very sceptical of a physical organization lasting for
thousands of years with inner secrets being passed on, etc, etc. Living
human beings don't work that way. I have made extensive investigations
and researches into both Hindu and Buddhist organizations and have
never found anything even close to what HPB describes except maybe
with Rampa, whom I discount as non-authentic (even David-Neel was
unable to substantiate any such occult organization in Tibet, except
in the fragmented sense of an occassional guru and his/her students).
I am not saying that HPB lied, or embellished the truth. I simply will
remain sceptical of her secret organization of Adepts until I find some
kind of confirmation.


>Here are a several historical items regarding the adept association:
>
>Henry Olcott testifies:
>
>"I have seen several Mahatmas---maybe six of them---both in their
>physical forms and in their astral bodies. . . . "
>

But he does not tell us that they were all in the same "school"
or "group" or "organization." The idea of six Mahatmas in India
is not altogether too far fetched, but the notion that they are all
organized together somehow is.



>Elsewhere he writes:
>
>"I know the Brothers to be living men and not spirits; and they have
>TOLD me that there are schools, under appointed adepts, where their
>Occult science is regularly taught." CAPS added.
>

I have no problem with this statement, because I feel sure that
these "schools" each contain one Adept with a bunch of students
and I don't believe for a second that they communicate much
between themselves.


>Daniel Caldwell wrote:
>
>> >That she was in direct communication with these adepts, i.e. Morya, Koot
>> >Hoomi and several other initiates.
>
>
>Jerry Schueler commented:
>
>> I think that we all must agree to this. The real question is whether
>> these two individuals were actually members of a group of Adepts
>> (they do not come off as traditional gurus, thats for sure).
>
>Daniel Caldwell replies:
>
>Again, why are you so skeptical that these two individuals were
>"actually members of a group of Adepts"?  I really don't understand on
>what such skepticism is based.  **If you can accept the reality of
>several Mahatmas known by Madame Blavatsky, then why is it such a leap
>of faith to be open to the possibility that these Adepts worked
>together, etc. and were members of an association?**
>

My scepticism is based on my own perceptions of human beings, my
knowledge of organizations (please look at the TS, for example), and
my extensive reading and study of occult organizations over many
years. Such "schools" were very small. KH may have led one, and M
may have led another and these two somehow got together. Anything
beyond that is too much for me to believe. If you go back to the ancient
mystery schools, there was usually only one or two real Teachers at
any time.


>Again consulting the historical records, we find that Damodar Mavalankar
>gives testimony to the existence of the Adept association:
>
>". . . . the next morning [Dec. 1883] . . . I had the good fortune of
>being sent for, and permitted to visit a Sacred *Ashram* where I
>remained for a few days in the blessed company of several of the much
>doubted MAHATMAS of Himavat and Their disciples.  There I met not only
>my beloved Gurudeva [KH] and Col. Olcott's Master [M], but several
>others of the Fraternity, including One of the Highest.  I regret the
>extremely personal nature of my visit to those thrice blessed regions,
>prevents my saying more of it.  Suffice it that the place I was
>permitted to visit is in the HIMALAYAS, not in any fanciful Summer Land
>and that I saw Him in my own sthula sarira (physical body) and found my
>Master identical with the form I had seen in the earlier days of my
>Chelaship.  Thus, I saw my beloved Guru [KH] not only as a *living* man,
>but actually as a young one in comparison with some other Sadhus of the
>blessed company, only far kinder, and not above a merry remark and
>conversation at times.  Thus on the second day of my arrival, after the
>meal hour I was permitted to hold an intercourse for over an hour with
>my Master. . . . "
>
>Here we see Damodar speaking of a number of Adepts in one Ashram:   the
>other Sadhus of the blessed company. . . .after the meal hour [maybe the
>adepts and some of their chelas were actually eating together!!], etc.
>etc.
>

His story reveals three Adepts: KH, M, and their boss. It is highly doubtful
that they all resided in the Ashram, but more likely were visitors
themselves.
KH and M often got together because they shared the same goals. I am
sceptical that there were any other Adepts.



>In private letters to William Judge, Damodar writes much about the
>"society" of the Mahatmas.  He attended one of the Council sessions at
>which many Adepts were present.
>

This is highly interpretive stuff. "Society" can be two people. Crowley,
for example, boasted of his own magical organization making it seem
huge when in fact there were only a couple of members.


>In a subsequent letter, Damodar writes to Judge that he was taken to the
>house of one of the Adepts in Sri Lanka.  In my historical research I
>have even discovered the location of this incident.
>
>Damodar writes:
>
>"There in a little garden in front we found one of the Brothers sitting,
>I had seen him before in the Council Room [where a number of Adepts were
>gathered!!!] and it is to him that this place belongs. . . ."
>
>In another letter Damodar tells of his out of the body experience to the
>"Chief Central Place" of the Adept Fraternity.  My research indicates
>that this place is located in the region just east-northeast of Ladakh
>in Western Tibet.  Other theosophists in HPB's lifetime report having
>gone to this place.  I realize that Paul Johnson considers Damodar's
>OOBE as a mere hallucination but having had veridical OOBEs myself, I
>can readily accept Damodar's account at face value.
>

I would question Damaodar's definition of Adept here. There are many
grades of Adepthood. The "Chief Central Place" is within us, not outside.
I too have had OOBEs and I believe them to confirm the independence
of the soul or spirit, but the experiences that we have while out of body
are
highly subjective in nature and I believe that most "places" visited are
on the inner planes rather than physical (for which physical eyes are
needed to see).



>And RELEVANT to the above subject is what I wrote in my critique of Paul
>Johnson's thesis on M and KH:
>
>Johnson devotes a chapter of his work The Masters Revealed (pp. 59-62)
>to Olcott's encounter with Ooton Liatto and another unnamed Adept.
>Johnson identifies Ooton Liatto with the Theosophical adept Hilarion
>Smerdis. He writes:
>
>". . . in May 1875, HPB's scrapbook noted that Hilarion and a companion
>‘passed thro[ough] New York & Boston, thence thro[ough] California and
>Japan back.’. . .A recent discovery by Joscelyn Godwin provides
>intriguing evidence for the visit to New York by Hilarion mentioned in
>HPB's diary [scrapbook?] in 1875....A letter from Olcott...describes
>meeting an adept....at 433 West 34th Street." (pp. 59-60)
>
>Here are relevant extracts from Olcott's letter (dated late 1875 or
>early 1876):
>
>"...I was reading in my room yesterday (Sunday) when there came a tap at
>the door---I said ‘come in’ and there entered the [younger] Bro[ther]
>with another dark skinned gentleman of about fifty....We took cigars and
>chatted for a while....[Then Olcott relates that a rain shower started
>in the room. Olcott continues the account:] They sat there and quietly
>smoked their cigars, while mine became too wet to burn....finally the
>younger of the two (who gave me his name as Ooton Liatto) said I needn't
>worry nothing would be damaged....I asked Liatto if he knew Madam
>B[lavatsky]....the elder Bro[ther]...[said] that with her permission
>they would call upon her. I ran downstairs---rushed into Madams
>parlour---and---there sat these same two identical men smoking with her
>and chatting....I said nothing but rushed up stairs again tore open my
>door and---the men were not there---I ran down again, they had
>disappeared---I . . . looked out the window---and saw them turning the
>corner...." (Olcott’s account is given in full in Theosophical History,
>Jan., 1994.)
>
>Commenting on Olcott’s story, Johnson makes the following highly
>significant admission:
>
>"The names Ooton Liatto and Hilarion Smerdis have been equally
>impossible to find in biographical and historical reference books. While
>both may be pseudonyms, there is little doubt that two real adepts
>visited Olcott in New York." (p. 62)
>
>The point I want to make on what I said in my critique is that here we
>find Paul Johnson admitting the existence of two real adepts.  Here are
>TWO adepts *associating* with each other, keeping each other's company.
>****If this is admitted, then why is it so far-fetched to believe that
>they might have had other Adept associates???****
>

Yes, Paul agrees that there are real living Adepts. So do I. But why must
they all be in leauge with each other? HPB traveled the world, and met
with many Adepts all over the place--which is one reason I like Paul's
books. She put together everything that she learned, accepting some
and rejecting others to come up with her Theosophy.


>Johnson believes that Ooton Liatto is probably Master Hilarion.  Well,
>Hilarion (according to Olcott's diary) visited both HPB and him in Feb.
>1881 in Bombay.  He reportedly was on his way to Tibetan regions.  Even
>KH mentions him in a Mahatma Letter.  Again why is it so difficult to
>believe that Hilarion, his unnamed associate in New York, Koot Hoomi and
>OTHER adepts were part of an organized group of Initiates.
>

For one thing, most true initiates don't travel around the world. They
find an Ashram or holy place of some kind and stay there. Few, if any,
are organized in the way HPB would have us believe.


>And if we believe BOTH of Olcott's accounts on Hilarion then he was one
>to travel the world:  New York. . . . India, Tibet.  I would suggest
>that maybe Hilarion was going to the "Central Central Place" in
>Northwestern Tibet.
>

I would just love to know why. Why? Why must an Adept travel to a
Central Place or anywhere else? They know very well that space and
time are illusion, and that there is no real need to go anywhere. Truth
is everywhere. Why travel? Today we see HH the Dali Lama traveling,
but he has a well stated purpose (to get his homeland back). And so
far even he doesn't seem to match up to the wild characteristics
given HPB's Masters. Once a person gets mixed up in organization,
they cannot give the required time to meditation and other spiritual
endeavors and must loose, in some degree, their Adepthood.



>I really don't understand a person's MINDSET that will accept individaul
>Theosophical adepts but won't accept the possibility that these adepts
>belong to a organized group.
>


Well, I for one, can't understand how you can possibly allow holy and
spiritual Adepts to run willy nilly over the world workng on organizational
matters and somehow still have time to be Adepts.

Jerry S.