Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00147)

> Why should any of the Adepts have to manifest to anyone ?

They don't. It is we who need to manifest to them.


>
>Suppose that the Adepts have already contacted us, would we be aware of it
?


Oh, they have. Apparently not.


>Ever since HPB made the presence and actuality of the Adepts known [ ISIS
II
>98-105 ] there have been those who desired to receive actual proofs of
their
>presence and nature.

Excuse me Dallas, but I knew of their presence long before I ever heard of
HPB.

>
>If we have not studied HPB's Theosophy, if we have liked what Annie Besant
>and Leadbeater and Jinarajadasa and others have written, [among those who
>claim "successorship" to HPB ] and called Theosophy, in preference to HPB
we
>are in a situation of a very unstable nature.

I am sorry that you feel this way. It is just this kind of attitude that has
resulted in a fragmented TS.


>We are curious, but we do not KNOW.

KNOWing or Gnosis comes from direct experience, not from reading
or studying book, not even HPB's books.


>If for whatever reason we have rejected HPB

Why on Earth do you keep insisting that we have "rejected" HPB??
If I say thanks to CWL for a few of his ideas that have helped me,
that does not imply that I have rejected HPB. I also have been
helped by G de Purucker, James Long and even Judge. As far as
I am aware, I never even once rejected HPB over this.


>are we
>of the opinion that HPB is "dead and
>gone ?"  It is my conviction that that is the greatest error that we could
>make.  We are all her "children,"

Gack!! Even she would gack at this one. How about "students" instead
of children, please.

>?  Are we not HPB's heirs ?  Do we not therefore carry some of the
>responsibility for its continuity and retransmission ?
>

I thought that the TSs were doing pretty much just this.

>Does not Theosophy, when grasped, eliminate dogmatism, priestcraft,
>authoritative interpretations, and place us firmly on our own thinking
>"feet," and make us see that we are responsible for our natures and for our
>own Karma.
>

I only wish that this were true. But dogmatism seems to be alive and well.
You yourself say that HPB is the only real authority to study, thus
"authoritative
interpretations" are right in your own words, my friend. I don't know a
single
Theosophist would thinks that their karma is someone else's responsibility.
Do you?

>It speaks of universal Law and admits on no deviations or exceptions.

Here is one more place where interpretation comes into play. My own
study of HPB tells me that when she uses the term universe, she means
only our own solar system of 7 planes. And deviations and exceptions
are actually built into these laws and allowed at times (its called free
will).

>It is a moral law ...

Ouch!!  I really wish you wouldn't do this to me. The notion of a
universal moral law is repugnant to me (I side with Chuck on this
one). Morality is completely a human invention and, as I have
already demonstrated in a past article, Kohlberg's moral scale
clearly indicates that the higher we rise in morality the more
relative good and evil look to us.


>Finally that each of us has a conscious "Ray" of the Universal Spirit
>resident within and this serves us as a tutor if and when we (as personal
>beings) desire instruction.  It is on this inner, or "spiritual" plane that
>the Adepts are UNIVERSALLY alive.

Agreed.


>I notice that many seem to have only a vague idea of what constitutes
>messages or writings from Adepts.  Or, if some are advanced, how to
>distinguish them from trashy statements.  Is not the proof of their value
>interior to the writing or message?  Have we the ability to distinguish
>value from trash ?

One man's trash is another man's value. There are various shades
or levels of Adepts, and each tries to reach an audience specific to
his or her Teaching. Just because a teaching doesn't help me, for
example, it does not conclude that it is trash because it may help
someone else who is receptive to that idea. Thus I try to respect all
Teaching and Teachers even though I may not agree with them.

Thanks for your thoughts Dallas. I don't always agree with you, but
I do enjoy your postings.

Jerry S.