Theos-Talk Archives (March 1999 Message tt00252)

In a message dated 3/17/99 6:09:22 AM, davidgreen@hotmail.com writes:

>>>Who are these agents, one might ask?
>>
>>Can you prove that you have "earned the right to know"?  If so, I'll tell
you?
>
>Like, hey man, you're serious about this?????  I can barely earn a 
>paycheck.  S--t, I didn't know I had to earn "the right to know."  How
>do you do that?  

Not altogether...  If you think I was talking about long dead agents.:~)
Sorry, you didn't "get it".... But serious and intuitive theosophical
"students" would know what I meant...  (Although I'm pretty sure you are quite
"serious" about looking for ways to denigrate the one who made that original
statement.)  

So, I don't know how you, personally, can earn the right.  That's for you to
find out.  I was only quoting you quoting RC--with a bit of tongue in cheek to
counteract your sarcasm.:-)  Besides, that statement was originally directed
at theosophists who had already studied HPB and the Masters--knew what it
meant to be "Chela's" and "Adepts"--and knew what RC meant by "earning the
right to know."  The same still holds today (among "real" theosophists) I'm
sure.
>
>This blows me away.  You're getting a little too heavy & metaphysical on
>me.  

Well, if you expect to Judge those theosophists like HPB, WQJ and RC, whose
whole life, writings and philosophies were wrapped up in metaphysics, you'd
better do some research in their theosophical writings to find out where they
were coming from and what they were talking about before you ask foolish
questions, make prejudicial judgments and snide remarks, or listen to the
self-serving "dead letter" gossip of old time participants in internecine
organizational battles.

>C'mon man tell us, don't keep secrets.  Who were these agents in 1915?
>  
>I bet Mr Crosbie was the main one.  

How would I know any more about 1915 than you can read in the standard
theosophical literature and figure out for yourself?  I could only tell you
who they might be now.  (The only hint I can give to those who haven't yet
"earned the right to know", is that they certainly would not be working
"through" any current TS organizational spinoff.;-)   And the only ones,
outside of other adepts who might know them, might be the historians of the
next century who will be reprting on the results of their work.  This time
around, there will not be a focus on "visible" leaders to be attacked like
they were in the past (and who still are--by agents of the other "Lodge" we
might assume--of which you might even be a member.).  Also, theosophical
organizations and esoteric sections are a thing of the past.  They did their
job by showing us that such elitist things never work and that we have to
carry forward the Movement through individual self devised and self determined
efforts--each as a nuclei of universal brotherhood--without the trappings of
hierarchical organizations that always breed separation in the long run.
(This, for the benefit of other serious theosophists in this forum who know
where the true esoteric teaching comes from, where it hides, and how to find
it.  But, keep it to yourselves.  And, especially, don't spill any beans to
Know nothing, freebooting, Trojan horse "historians" ;-)

As for your last remark... That sounds like a bit or sarcasm to me, and might
be taken as another sign of a prejudicial attitude--which is somewhat evident
in all your posts so far--as others have pointed out.   

So, why don't you study RC's philosophy and find out what he meant by all
that?  Maybe you ought to read his notes on the Bhagavad Gita (more than half
of which he finished after WQJ died).  It might give you some idea of whether
or not he had the status of an HPB or WQJ, or was one of the agents of the
theosophical movement.  

As I see it, his founding of the ULT without "leaders" or the trappings of
organizational structure--to counteract the failures of the TS--was enough, in
itself, to give him the status of a major agent of the Masters.  Whether he
was the main one or not in the earlier half cycle of the TM is not for me to
say...  Although I wouldn't bet against you.  The ULT idea of independent
study in small groups whether in or outside of a formal Lodge is still alive
and kicking.  

As far as I'm concerned, study of the history of the movement, has very little
to do with the study and practice of theosophy, or fulfillment of the aims of
the theosophical movement (which I assume is the main interest of these
theosophical forums).  Therefore, I don't think I'll have much more to say
about all this negative propaganda about theosophical teachers of the past and
leave it for others to defend them if there's any need to.  As for those
"agents" of the present movement... Well, what we don't know (because we
haven't "earned the right"), can't hurt them.;-)  Let's just leave it at that
and get on with our regular business.

In the meantime, I'm sure, theosophy will hold up on its own merits.  And, the
"agents" will take care of their own business... While we leave the nitpicks
to pick their nits.  As for the critical historians and philologists--who have
no inkling of what theosophy is all about.  Let them talk to each other about
what they can only see as "flickering shadows on a wall". 

Best wishes to all true searchers,

Leon

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.