Re: Theos-World RE: RE: DTB = D on HPB'S WORK AND MASTERS
Mar 02, 2000 08:42 PM
by Barrett Culmback
Comment the beginning lines of the S.D.: "The author, the writer, rather
Interested in 'Consciousness'? Go To:
"It is understandable that a child might fear the darkness; less so that an
adult would fear the light." Plato
----- Original Message -----
From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 6:51 PM
Subject: RE: Theos-World RE: RE: DTB = D on HPB'S WORK AND MASTERS
> March 2 2000
> Dear Dennis:
> Thank you and I would like to respond below:
> I am always careful of what I write as usually (otherwise) it
> means one has to do things twice.
> Just a habit of mine and not anything else.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Dennis Kier
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 6:26 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: RE: DTB = D on HPB'S WORK AND
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: W. Dallas TenBroeck
> Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 6:16 AM
> > > You ask about HPB and her work. She was emphatically not a
> > > "shell." She was an Adept and worked as such. There are
> > > apparently times when an Adept can allow a Brother Adept to
> > > as their "vehicle" the body that one has to use in any one
> > > incarnation. But the "owner of the body" does NOT lose
> > > consciousness -- only "stands aside" for a while as HPB
> > >describes it clearly. It is unimportant that you may
> interpret things
> > >you study differently from myself. That is always true among
> > > students.
> I see. I was under the impression that this was a conversation. I
> see it is
> a word/defination discussion. I will try to alter my approach to
> better in that mode.
> HPB says" Someone comes and envelopes me as a misty cloud and all
> at once
> pushes me out of myself, and then I am not 'I' anymore-- Helena
> Blavatsky-- but someone else....I even understand and remember it
> all so
> well that afterwards I can repeat it and even write down his
> I suppose that you wish me to put in here the reference, so you
> can go and
> read it for yourself, and as you probably have the material close
> at hand,
> it was from a letter written by H.P.B. to her sister, vera, and
> was one of a
> series published by William Q. Judge in his magazine, The Path,
> 1894, Vol IX, No. 9, p.266.
> DTB Correct I have it here. She was describing the event for
> her family to understand what happened. She was still in control
> and CONSCIOUS . A medium usually is not. An Adept is always
> aware at all times.
> The Evaluation of the situation by another who knew her is that,
> "I will put
> forth my own theory, For the purpose of the theosophical work
> that body was
> an instrument used by one of the Masters, known to us as H.P.B.
> When he had
> to attend to other business, the instrument was left in charge of
> one of his
> pupils or friends, who ran the body as an engineer directs his
> machine when
> taking duty for another...." This is from Dr. Keightley, (who
> helped put toghether the SD.) Theosophical Quarterly, New York,
> Vol. VII, October, 1910. Republished in Theosophia, Los
> Angeles, Vol. XVI, No. 1, p.20.
> DTB Yes that is Keightley's way of expressing the matter. But
> that does not make it correct.
> Do you mean THEOSOPHY Vol 17 ?
> You say she was not a "shell". Olcott & the Masters called her
> that, but in
> a colloquial way. There may not be a real good technical
> description of what
> she was. One of the Masters called the shell, "it and the brother
> it." Old Diary Leaves, Vol. 1, p.247. There are other instances,
> but if you
> read the book, you should find them.
> DTB understood, however the usual use of the word "SHELL"
> implies (to me) that condition is of a non-self-conscious medium
> usually in a trance.
> HPB as far as I can ascertain was an ADEPT and always was in
> control. She "loaned" her body to other Adepts. But was not
> unconscious of the event or of the use. I guess I am splitting
> hairs, and regret annoying you. But it is always my practice to
> be as explicit as possible in comminuting so as to avoid any such
> time waste as this represents to both of us.
> One Technical term is "Tulku", but they say she was not exactly
> that, but in
> a situation similar to that. ODL, V.1, p. 243--246. Another
> definition of
> the term is on page 481 of BLAVATSKY COLLECTED WRITINGS, Vol. 1.
> DTB I am aware of both of these.
> Earlier in the last century, around 1918, the Communists killed
> the Tzar and
> his family. One of the daughters, not at the end of her Karma,
> found the
> body of a Polish girl, a few years older than her, who had tried
> to commit
> suicide, and the body was lying in a hospital bed, in a coma.
> When this body
> woke up, it had the memories of the Russian
> Princess, -Anastasia-. People
> who had known the Russian, said that the awakened girl had all
> the memories
> and mannerisms of Anastasia. DNA tests a few years ago proved
> that she was
> no physical relation to the Royal Families of Europe.
> DTB Theosophy offers the possibility that the body of the
> unconscious person was left vacant and by some rule of Karma it
> could be use by the intelligence of the princess. That is only a
> guess, as it might mean that the "astral and personal nature did
> not have to go through Devachan, but because it had some ancient
> affinity for the personality of the now unconscious body of the
> failed suicide, these two events permitted such a transfer. Did
> the personality of the Polish girl ever surface again? Did
> anyone maintain a study of the Polish girl to see if this now
> "borrowed body" continued to be used by "Anastasia?" Or does
> that fade away and no history was maintained ? It would be
> interesting to see if there are any records of that aspect. Do
> you know any more of that?
> I do not think of anything that happens "accidentally" as the
> whole of Nature runs under very definite laws. to us it may seem
> to be extraordinary, but there must be some logical reason for
> events to occur -- even such a strange one as this. I am sure
> you are aware of the case of Mr. Judge ? But that is even
> stranger as reported. See LETTERS THAT HAVE HELPED ME p. 249 ULT
> Edition: IN A BORROWED BODY.
> This was no doubt, an example of the Tulku process happening
> It happened again a few years earlier in England, when a little 4
> year old
> girl named Dorothy Eady fell down stairs, went into a coma, and
> when she
> woke up in her own bed, demanded to be taken home. And, she
> didn't mean
> Jonathan Cott wrote a book about it, THE SEARCH FOR OMM SETY.
> I'll bet that
> he didn't set the type for it, or run the presses, or order the
> thing done
> by himself either. Published by Doubleday & Company, Garden
> City, New York,
> 1987, ISBN 0-385-23746-4.
> She found her home when they visited the British Museum, in the
> section. She wanted to stay. She asked why things were all old
> and broken,
> since when she had gone to sleep, everything was new and and
> DTB I have know of several cases where the reincarnation of the
> Ego into a child body (usually below the age of 7) may evoke a
> memory of the past personal life. Usually this fades, but for
> those who may not be aware of reincarnation the effect is
> startling and often can evoke an attempt to "shush" the child.
> The point is that this happens in nature, and the Tibetan Lamas
> have made
> use of this human characteristic & ability, to mimic it when
> their consciousness. They usually keep their own natural body,
> and just
> overwhelm, or overshadow the "shell" of the person they wish to
> Sometimes it is their students.
> DTB Also ISIS II 600-2 HPB illustrates this process. I am sure
> that this is no "mimicry" it is an actuality and implies a
> knowledge of psychology and a control of the pathways of the
> Conscious Self of One's SELF and that of others. But also it is
> clear that his exchange or control is only done when there is a
> good Karmic reason for it. I also believe that Abbe Huc narrates
> something along these lines in his travel book. I seem to recall
> The masters had a problem with Karma. They looked long and hard
> for a
> "European Body" that they could send out to Europe & America to
> teach their
> beliefs, and to start their Society.They didn't want the Karma
> with taking over a living person who was not through with their
> life, so
> thay looked and waited.
> DTB I am aware of what they write on this , but your
> interpretation seems to me to be yours and not theirs. Karma is
> no "problem" to Them. The avoid making any "bad" karma. They
> live under the same rules we do, but as they are aware of them
> and their inflexibility, they avoid evoking them adversely. WE
> seem to be interested in the phenomenal process and in performing
> some unusual feat of control -- but the reason, the motive for
> that is known only to ourselves, and could be quite selfish/ the
> question is then, is it necessary? Does it help the rest of the
> world? Is it an aspect of Brotherhood?
> HPB had been associated with them before this incarnation, and
> She had met
> her "Adept" in London In (1851 if I recall correctly).
> DTB Yes she met her Master in the flesh in London in 1851 and
> recorded it in her diary. But she also noted that it was a
> meeting of the "Master of her dreams" as she had seen him before
> in her mind's eye, or, as an astral vision when she was a younger
> She got involved in a war, and needed assistance. They threw the
> body in a ditch since they
> thought she was dead. Olcott said that she had shown him where
> her arm had
> been broken in two places, and a severe wound over the heart, and
> one as well, from that battle.
> DTB That was when she was with Garibaldi at the battle of
> Mentana, I believe. she was wounded several times and left for
> dead, but they revived and returned. It ha also been hinted (but
> I have not found a primary source for this) that at that time
> there was a change of inner SELF and her body was perhaps
> reanimated with ANOTHER CONSCIOUSNESS -- which we know of as
> "HPB" -- and yet the personality retained all the memories of its
> earlier years. But we simply are speculating here and are
> arriving at no useful conclusion.
> I say let THEOSOPHY or, the presentation thereof be witness to
> the WISDOM of the HPB who acted as Messenger of the Mahatmas and
> our friend.
> I do not think we will be able to "explain" her Olcott tried and
> offered many theories, but of what use? He did not profit very
> well from the presentation of THEOSOPHY at least the ethics that
> are part of the theory and metaphysics and are logically derived
> from them -- did not attract his close attention as things to be
> practised -- or the course of the T S once that HPB and WQJ her
> dead would have been quite different.
> Her Master re-animated her, and they formed a "club" to use her,
> much in the
> manner of a TULKU, except that one of them occupied the body all
> the time.
> They took turns. There were 7 Masters in the group.
> DTB THAT IS NEWS TO ME. I never read this and wonder if you
> could direct me to the source of this statement.
> In the Collected Works, Vol.1, pp. 414--415, bottom of p. 414
> they note
> "Narayan left watch-- and in came Sahib. (Master M) The latter
> with orders
> from Serapis to complete all by the first days of December.
> DTB I took note of this too, but "keeping watch" does not mean
> that the body was INFORMED. It means that it was carefully
> watched over. To read more into it is not the way I would go.
> It is speculation. I do not find that being informed of this
> helps me to lead a better or more spiritual life. How does it
> help you ?
> In the MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P.SINNETT, letter # 45, he closes
> with "I am called to
> duty." p.246. What duty? -well, it is his turn to animate the
> shell, and not let it die. (my conclusion, of course)
> DTB YES, I think it is yours, but then in those same letters in
> other places the "other duties" are often referred to, and as far
> as I can see they do not always focus on HPB. Usually they
> indicate limits on the time that the Master can spend in
> correspondence with Sinnett.
> In OLD DIARY LEAVES, Vol. 1, p 289, 290, 291. concerning Olcott's
> Term for the shell, "avesa" "To return to the matter of the
> occupancy (avesa) of H.P.B.'s body. ... Let us say that the
> Master A or B had been "on guard" an hour or more, had been
> working on ISIS, alone or jointly with me, and was at a given
> moment saying
> something to me, or if third parties were present to one of them.
> she (he?) stops speaking, rises and leaves the room, excusing
> herself for a
> moment on some pretext to strangers. She presently returns, looks
> around as
> any new arrival would upon entering a room where there was
> company, makes
> herself a fresh cigarette, and says something which has not the
> reference to what had been talked about when whe left the room.
> Some one
> present, wishing to keep her to the point, asks her kindly to
> explain. She
> shows embarrassment and inability to pick up the thread;....
> says, "Oh yes:
> excuse me," and goes on with her subject. She was sometimes as
> quick as
> lightning in these changes, and I myself, forgetting her
> personality, have often been irritated for her seeming inability
> to keep to
> the same subject....
> On the same page, Olcott describes how the Master occupies the
> "entered and by slow degrees occupied the whole body of the dead
> down to its
> very feet."
> DTB I looked up those pages in my OLD DIARY LEAVES SERIES of 6
> volumes. Mine is the 2nd edition 1928 -- and the pagination
> seems to be different. If you could let me have the CHAPTER
> Olcott and others were interested in the phenomena and the
> processes they could witness. I am interested in the PHILOSOPHY
> and not those other things (of which I am aware) but as they have
> nothing (or little) to do with the PHILOSOPHY, I relegate them to
> the position of being interesting events --side issues -- and not
> of any great importance (to me).
> I say to myself that the PHILOSOPHY OF THEOSOPHY will survive a
> long time when these descriptions of how HPB did this or that are
> long forgotten.
> This brings to mind the Hawaiian practice of the Kahunas sending
> one of
> their captive spirits (like you think HPB was when standing
> beside her body
> when a Master was inside) to attack & kill a victim. Max Freedom
> Long, THE
> SECRET SCIENCE BEHIND MIRACLES, & THE SECRET SCIENCE AT WORK.
> They claim
> that in the process of the attack, first the feet go numb, and
> the numbness
> creeps up the body, and when it reaches the heart region, the
> victim dies.
> DTB Did you ever come across and read HPB's story CAN THE DOUBLE
> 1876 -77 (Modern Panarion, p. 95). (see HPB LETTERS TO
> A.P.Sinnett p. 151-3 on how this was written). HPB explains this
> capacity of the astral body to be sent and directed.
> I do not think that numbing death that Freedom Long writes of is
> a parallel case. As I recall Socrates describes it after he
> drank the hemlock. But dying is not being in-formed, is it ?
> The Masters are evidently using some similar capacity of the
> human body when
> they do their thing.
> DTB I am not sure what you imply by that. Seems to be very vague
> and speculative to me.
> They also use this capacity when they wish to recognize a new
> Dali Lama, or other reincarnational Lama, when they energize the
> body of a baby, to see if it will recognize the tools and
> possessions of the old Lama.
> DTB I am also not sure that the Masters play any hand in such
> things. To impute it to Them is quite speculative and may be
> very inaccurate I think. Is this process not also illustrated in
> ISIS II 598 ?
> In Old Diary Leaves, Vol. 1, p 291, "I have noted above how
> various Mahatmas, in writing to me about H.P.B. and her body,
> spoke of the latter as a shell occupied by one of themselves."
> DTB Quite true, but might mean that the Conscious Entity we call
> HPB is a Master, and He/she used that body . If that is the
> case, that does not mean that HPB as the Adept using that body
> was a non-entity, or incapable of self-will and self-direction.
> Of course the whole thing turns into an argument and that is
> again a waste of time and proves nothing as only HPB or one of
> the Masters could settle the matter. And why should they waste
> the time?
> > After her death (as far as I can see and read) he made some
> > accusations that he had not dared utter to her while she was
> > alive. He also showed his animosity to Mr. Judge in more ways
> > than one and was instrumental in promoting the "Judge Case"
> > beyond reasonable limits, especially as it had been terminated
> > July 1894, and BROTHERHOOD was the prime Object of the
> > Theosophical Society.
> As for BROTHERHOOD, I note very little of it in the Theosophical
> what with 3 or more distinct organizations, locally, all claiming
> to be the
> One, True, and Original society. If there were true Brotherhood,
> you would
> think that they could all get together, stop fighting each other,
> wasting their members money duplicating each other's efforts, and
> try to
> extend Brotherhood to each other as well as the potential new
> DTB I have no argument against that proposal. However persons
> will be individuals and make up their own minds in their own way
> (and bear the karmic consequences of that). To join one of the
> TSes or another does not in any way help anyone. The only value
> that I can detect is that one might be able to cross check one's
> conclusions with others so as to make sure that they are more
> accurate than what one might be able to arrive at alone. In such
> mattes thee is no need to assume one is either superior or
> inferior. since we are all "Immortal Pilgrims" our "age" is
> probably quite uniform. But the areas in which we have made
> ourselves proficient may differ. Also, although all men can look
> into a Diamond through one facet or another, it does not change
> the Diamond, only the views differ.
> > Olcott asked one of the Adepts, when they were together how
> > different varieties of Adept there is, and the Master said 65.
> > DTB Do you have the reference for this statement? I cannot
> > recollect it. I would be obliged for your giving me the source
> > for it. Where did the Master say "65 ?"
> > Is there anything else given there in additional explanation?
> > I would very much like to be able to see it.
> > To myself I say: And why "65" and not "70 ?"
> > I cannot recollect reading this in MAHATMA LETTERS, or some of
> > the other sources that have reprinted Masters' letters. But
> > I have not read everything either.
> I must confess that I made an error in quoting that number from
> memory. The
> number is "63". ODL, Vol.1 p278.
> DTB THANKS BUT I THINK YOU GOT THE WRONG PAGE, AS THERE IS
> NOTHING ABOUT THAT THERE. So ? Maybe there was a change in
> pagination ? What chapter ? It is also possible that my 2nd
> edition has a different pagination than yours. what Chapter do
> you read that in?
> ==================== ? =================
> There is another quotation which points to there being more than
> one type on
> each level. Blavatsky: Collected Writings, Volume XIV, p. 435 ,
> These degrees are
> "based (on) the seven and twelve degrees of the Hierarchy of
> All these are men, and not disembodied Beings,..."
> DTB AGREED THAT THERE ARE ADEPTS AT VARIOUS LEVELS. I would
> imagine that in an Infinite Universe with uncountable
> "incarnations/manifestations, there are most probably many MONADS
> which have attained far higher areas of responsibility than we
> might imagine. Suffice it, then that we learn what lessons we
> can from the position we are in at present. That would include,
> I think the attitude of assistance which can be exchanged between
> us all -- and in that we are all BROTHERS.
> And then there is another matter. As a shell, (Avesa, Tulku,
> whatever name
> you may wish to use) HPB did very slight phenomena before she got
> the bullet
> to the heart fighting for Garibaldi. After the Group of Seven
> took over the
> body, it could do all sorts of phenomena. It was the battery for
> transfer of letters back and forth from and to the Masters. After
> her death,
> they quit sending letters, claiming that there was no more power.
> DTB NEAR THE HEART not TO THE HEART as I read it. also although
> she was healed I have not read of there being a "GROUP OF SEVEN"
> who took over the body. DO YOU HAVE A REFERENCE FOR THAT ?
> As to HPB's phenomena one need only refer to the accounts of her
> family when as she a young woman returned to visit them and they
> marveled at the quantity of "manifestations" all around her. so
> saying they were "slight" seems hardly the right term, unless you
> qualify it and add ("to my knowledge.")
> Collected Writings, Vol. XIII, p. 93,
> "....It has never claimed to be the full exposition of the system
> advocates) in its totality; (a) because as the writer does not
> boast of
> being a great Initiate, she could, therefore, never have
> undertaken such a
> gigantic task; and (b) because had she been one, she would have
> still less..."
> You and Mr. Judge say that she is an Adept. She says she was not.
> Who shall
> one believe?
> DTB Why not trust what she wrote? I mean the PHILOSOPHY ? Has
> that been destroyed by these accounts and details?
> HPB did not say she was NOT an INITIATE. She said that she was
> not a GREAT initiate.
> There is a difference, and we cannot rate that. Many have been
> the speculations written after her death as to who or what the
> Real HPB was -- even extending such ideas to including in them an
> "incarnation of Tsong-kha-pa."
> I have seen plump individuals used as batteries for mediums at
> churches. It is rather common, once you know what to look for. It
> is obvious
> that HPB had this capacity.
> DTB NOT TO ME AND I WOULD SAY THAT IS A PRESUMPTION. Something
> that we cannot prove but only speculate about. HPB adopted a
> very sedentary way of lie after she arrived in America so as to
> write all that had to be done. Earlier she had been very active
> and widely traveled. Frequently those who cease being active
> develop fat -- but that is only an observation and not part of
> any speculation on my part. She was said to have developed
> several diseases which would have resulted in her premature death
> and also prevented THE SECRET DOCTRINE from being issued.
> Apparently ( as Countess Wachmeister) recorded, she was known, at
> least once if not twice, to have refused death and continued
> working and writing for THEOSOPHY and for the TS.
> So, it is back to studying the material, and noting those things
> that have
> special meaning for me. It appears to me that your purpose in
> Theosophy, is to Study Theosophy. My purpose is to evolve closer
> to the end
> of the Adept state, and beyond. There is a lot of material to put
> and to make a pattern, and to put it into practice. Otherwise,
> for me, it is
> just an intellectual exercise for the purpose of doing the
> DTB Each to his own. If you think you will do well with your
> area and method, then good.
> Yes I do study THEOSOPHY. The study of people and events may
> also eventually lead to some conclusions, but if they are limited
> to our present views, I am afraid that we will miss the larger
> If you want a valuable book to look over then borrow a copy of M.
> Gomes THEOSOPHY IN THE 19TH CENTURY -- An Annotated Bibliography,
> [1994 Garland Publishing New York & London] Looking through its
> pages many aspects of Theosophical history and the nature and
> work of HPB are made to stand out. There are 2057 entries there.
> It would take years to go through all of them.
> Best wishes,
> I left out lots of quotes. Hope no one minds.
> -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk --
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to email@example.com.
> -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- firstname.lastname@example.org
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to email@example.com.
-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- firstname.lastname@example.org
Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to email@example.com.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application