Theos-Talk Archives (October 2000 Message tt00172)

Hi Frank,

At 02:39 PM 17/10/2000 +0200, you wrote:
>>>>>Todd wrote:
>>>>>> Benjamin Creme's Master has stated that Maitreya is a 7th degree
>>>>>>>initiate and that the Buddha is an 8th degree initiate. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Frank wrote:
>For Benjamin Creme also such guys as Hitler and Stalin are high initiates,
>so how trustful is he?

I don't see how that automatically makes him "untrustworthy"?? A Hitler or
a Stalin would *have* to have some degree of inner power in order to sway
the masses. We all know that a word of power or mantra recited by one
individual can have no influence at all but when recited by someone of more
"advanced" inner stature will have *much* more effect. Creme said that
these two individuals were around the 2nd degree initiate status. However,
the soul is not in full control until at least the 3rd initiation. Between
the 1st and the 3rd initiation a battle occurs within the individual
between the personality and the soul for control. This stretches for the
lives lived within the duration between the 1st and the 3rd initiation (and
sometimes longer). It is not out of the question to have someone of a
considerable degree of advancement (relative to the majority of humanity)
and still be suseptible to negative influences. What about the semior
initiates of the Black Lodge? Are they not of some advanced development
yet lacking in some specific heart qualities? They are aid to be (by
H.P.B. and Bailey) as Adept in the occult arts as some of the Master's of
the Hierarchy, yet lack a peculiar connection to the "Heart of God". They
have a divine role in the Cosmos in upholding the material aspect of
creation BUT their worked has spilled over onto the astral and mental
planes where they have gained control. Sealed to only the material aspect
of creation, they have a divine role to play. That is why we say "Seal the
door where evil dwells" in the Great Invocation.
Another example could be someone like Milarepa, the 12th century Tantric
Master. He lived a life of Service and Teaching in some of the more
obscure and occult aspects of Tantric Buddhism, however, he didn't start
out that way!! It was only under the guidance of his teacher Marpa that he
turned form pursuing Black Magic and reformed his approach to life. Would
you not say that Milarepa was not an initiate of at least some standing.
I think it is quite possible to have someone of at least "some" standing
in soul awareness and yet still be under the force of their own powerful
personality and thus do some dirty deads. I don't find the idea tasteful
in any way, but it nevertheless is not impossible and the evidence suggests
that it is possible. 
So, again, why does that make Benjamin Creme automatically untrustworthy? 

>>>>Todd wrote:
>>>>>energy of Love which He embodies. The Buddha acts as an intermediary
>>>>>between the Hierarchy (with Maitreya at its Head in the Office of the
>>>>>Christ) and Shamballa.
>
>Frank wrote:
>One should bear in mind that such a kind of Hierarchy which is described
>here and was taught by AB/AAB/CWL and the like is NOT supported by the
>original Theosophy by HPB. And HPB taught further and in contradiction to
>the later claims of AB/AAB/CWL that Christ was no person and will NOT
>return.
>
>

Well, I believe that H.P.B. was long dead before Bailey wrote any of her
works. H.P.B. could not have *directly* denied anything that Bailey said,
although, some of her writings may have "appeared" to disagree with/ or not
fully align with the claims of Bailey. I suspect that much of the
*denials* come from later Theosophists and their own interpretations. Be
that as it may, I am reaching over and pulling out the first book in my
vicinity ("The Key to Theosophy"), open it to page 288 and the following
chapter, to read all about an *absolute* affirmation of the existence of
Mahatmas and Adepts, all belonging to a "White Lodge", a Brotherhood if you
will, and references made to different grades of individuals such as
Adepts, Chelas, Chohans, Mahatmas, Initiates and Masters. In this sense,
Blavatsky has *entirely* established the existence of the Hierarchy. The
fact that Bailey comes later and fills in the role of some members within
that Hierarchy serves as no contradiction to H.P.B. The fact that H.P.B.
for the most part refused to speak of specific roles, or even denied them
at times, is no different than the Buddha denying God *because you could
not speak of it* and then having followers later claim that the Buddha said
there are no gods. We know how regretful that H.P.B. was about revealing
the existence of the Masters and how she later tried to clarify her
position. The fact that H.P.B. speaks very little, or denies outright, the
position of certain figures within the Hierarchy, *YET* fully establishes
the existence of that Hierarchy eeks a bit of self-contradiction. Either
there IS a Hierarchy and, therefore, there *must* be some specific roles or
duties within that Great Lodge (despite H.P.B.'s claim otherwise), *OR* the
notion of Hierarchy is incorrect and she has made a mistake there. If the
former is true then H.P.B. cannot have the last word on it and so your
statement that "Hierarchy which is described here and was taught by
AB/AAB/CWL and the like is NOT supported by the original Theosophy by HPB"
is interesting but undefinitive. 
Furthermore, you state that "HPB taught further and in contradiction to
the later claims of AB/AAB/CWL that Christ was no person and will NOT
return." Respectfully, I doubt that Blavatsky was privy to the entire Plan
as known by the Hierarchy and was given only that which was her duty to
reveal. The Plan is a dynamic evolving thing, subject to change given the
response (quicker or slower) of humanity, etc. Remember that the world
wars followed after Blavatsky had already passed on and a tremendous change
was occuring in the world. Bailey states that the Plan evolved and that
the Christ made the decision to return in the physical in 1945. Maybe she
is right...maybe she is wrong.....but I would prefer to investigate that
claim on its own merit rather than to rest on the statement that HPB didn't
make that claim 40-50 years earlier.
Please forgive me if I am sounding abrupt but I am trying to be lucid
and pointed and clear in my thinking and it is easy to be misled in our
thinking. I am only seeking truth like anyone else. 

>>>Todd wrote: 
>>>>> Maitreya is the "World Teacher" for 
>>>>>this age and sits at the head of the
>>>>Hierarchy as the "Eldest" of the *Human* family. 
>
>Frank wrote:
>But for many Theosophists it is Madame Blavatsky 
>who served as the messenger
>for the new age...

Yes, and this holds true for many who would claim not to be a theosophist.
But she is not necessarily the *only* messenger. History has proven that
great teachers come time and time again. We are in a profound period of
time. There are many amazing things occurring in the world that clearly
reach beyond the limits of what Blavatsky had to say. What about Sai Baba?
Premananda? Paramahansa Yogananda? Mother Meera? Maitreya? Bailey?
Krishnamurti? Muktananda? Blah, Blah, Blah. Blavatsky laid powerful
foundations for the New Age, I don't think that is in dispute. But surely
she is not the end of it....and surely she is not the only disciple in
history charged by the Hierarchy with the task of furthering the Ageless
Wisdom teachings. I don't think Blavatsky gave the complete and *final*
version, this she admitted herself. 
Theosophy has given us very much, there is no doubt about it, but
sometimes we need to step outside of the "Theosophical sandbox" in order to
gain some perspective.

In seeking knowledge,
Todd