Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00289)

W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:

> What I do object to is the unquestioning faith and belief of many who either
> trust all the read,

I agree. Please realize that there are tons and tons of statements in the SD
that are impossible for anyone of us to prove or disprove. I think it is
unhealthy to take all of that on blind faith, too.

> DALLAS (re the dactation caimed to be given by the Maha Chohan)
>
> I would need far more than a declaration.  When was it said, to whom was it
> said, under what crisis or circumstances was this siad ?  Was it necessary
> to say it ?  and to those persons ?  When these questions are satisfactorily
> answerd the n I will give it some weight.

I won't argue with you regarding your need for answers per the above. To be
honest about it, I can't say from my own direct and irrefutable experience that
I KNOW this was the Maha Chohan speaking. My experience when being present at
these dictations is that of "spiritual reality" and "authenticity". I also find
that there is a considerable infusion of my being with higher spiritual energies
and that I find the content of the dictations to make sense (which others
disagree with).


>But it seems tome tha it is a
> repetition on the main of what has been said before.
 So why the reminder ?

Great spiritual teachers have usually repeated that which has been said before.
HPB officially declares that she is doing the same. In one case (HPB) you find
no fault with the repetition and reminders (after all, "brotherhood" was hardly
a new invention of HPB's, yet she talked a lot about it), in another you
maintain that repetition does not make sense. Why do we need these reminders?
Well, Dallas, is not the answer pretty obvious - we tend to forget or pretend to
forget. We need to be reminded about the value of universal brotherhood until we
have realized it, and beyond, lest we forget again, to give you one example. ECP
has even publicly declared that it is an important part of her job to remind us
of that which we already know.

> ===================================================
> >
> >> Anyone who has the audacity to employ such a designation does
> >> not know what a "Maha Chohan" is or does.
> >
> >Again, you are doing nothing more than stating your belief, without backing
> it
> >up with anything substantial.
> >
> >>  So I object to
> >> anything so attributed [to the MC], realizing that it stems from the
> psychic rather than from the spritual planes.
> >
> >Again, you are stating your belief and I can state mine: "I am realizing
> that it
> >stems from the spiritual rather than from the psychic planes."
> ==================================
>
> POSSIBLY TRUE.  CAN YOU OR I VERIFY THIS ?

No, that was my point. It is really rather futile to argue against experience.
If I see a tree in front of me and somebody comes along and says - you don't see
a tree, you are actually hallucinating, will I believe him or will I believe my
perceptions? In this case, I see a tree and you don't, and there is not easy way
to prove that it is there or isn't. I recommend the practicing of the universal
brotherhood idea, and basic theosophical principles: "Theosophist is, who
theosophy does" (HPB). To me, it matters little, if you agree with me or not
regarding ECP's authenticity as a messenger. It matters more where our hearts
are and what we do for our fellow men.

> =================================================
> >The masters have used many ways of communicating throughout the ages. Both
> >public and private forms of communication have been used. The Prophets of
> Israel
> >were delivering messages from their God quite publically, many times.
> >
> ========================================
> DALLAS
> Those are the claims made.  Now can they be substantiated ?

Not objectively, only by individual confirmation in the core of ones own being.

> ==========================================
>
> Dear Bjorn:
>
> It is not fair to you or t me to try and debate a statement such as that
> which is made.  You note that I endorse that which is true and useful in it.
> But I question the necessity for attributing this to a "Maha Chohan" and
> especially the attachment of a NUMBER.  That is highly curious.

If there is a "necessity" to attribute a dictation by the Maha Chohan to the
Maha Chohan I don't know, but it makes sense that when I write something I sign
it with my name, and when I give messages to others, that I let them know where
they came from. Perhaps the Maha Chohan feels the same way.

Regarding the number, "82", I explained in an earlier answer that the 82 was
only something I added to refer to the year, 1982, when this dictation was
given. Sorry for not being more clear about this originally.

Bjorn