Theos-Talk Archives (October 2000 Message tt00181)

Frank,

Regretfully, we will have to agree to disagree and go no further. I find
your approach to be less than conducive to real inquiry where it comes to
furthering any knowledge of esotericism. When I have been challenged add
to the discussion, I have offered sources, information and "possiblities"
for others to look at or simply consider. In response, Frank, you cry
"black magic", "idolater", "deceiver", "terrorizer", "blasphemer", and then
plant the seeds of mistrust and suspicion in the group by talking of
conspiracies to overthrow Theosophy, spirituality, etc. What is this
promotion of fear and distrust all about?? There is little incentive for
anyone to ask *meaningful* questions where there lurks this intolerance and
fear. 
You know nothing of me, sir, and you have earned little right in my
eyes to be in a position to imply - in any way, shape or form - that I am
a voice for the Black Lodge. Your comments are rife with the same
distasteful rhetoric and knee-jerk reaction used a century ago by the
opponents of Blavatsky. I agree that there are certainly points that will
always appear contradictory between us, but that does not automatically
make *ME* a clandestine supporter of Rome, or a spiritual "thief" or
"criminal". Your reaction is unwarranted and I will leave my previous
comments stand as they are instead trying to defend them. You still have
not provided a satisfactory reply to my comments but have only restated
your belief that HPB was right and everyone else after her is lesser or wrong.

>What are the hidden voices and the background 
>powers who spread such insande thoughts? Is that 
>a kind of remote thought control from Rome?

We aught not rigidly stand in one spot and crystalize H.P.B.'s works. That
is the real danger here. If we stand in our own little center of the world
and claim that we have the last word on esotericism because HPB said it,
then we have struck the death blow to Theosophy. Theosophy is a "living
philosophy". It is meant to be lived. It must breathe and grow. If we
draw rigid lines around HPB's teachings then it will quickly become
insufficient for a growing humanity. Granted, we must also be careful not
substantiate every little self-proclaimed guru that comes along. Always
the need for open-minded discrimination. 

Todd 



At 12:18 PM 18/10/2000 +0200, you wrote:
>>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
>
>Benjamin Creme gives Hitler in his "occult charts" 2.0 points, but Gottfried
>de Purucker, who is in my humble opinion after ten years studying him, gains
>only 1.6 points. That means, Creme believes that Hitler was more initiated
>than Purucker, but he was tuahgt by the same teachers as HPB and taught the
>same doctrine as she and was her follower as Teacher and Messenger of the
>Masters. Therefore I call Creme untrustworthy, besides other things like the
>Maitraya-Christ poppycock which is really black magic and has not 1% to do
>with Theosophy.
>
>>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
>
>Many students on this list are tired to fight over and over again the same
>old battles. OK, here are only two out of the many paragraphs of HPB about
>the return of Christ:
>
>"Judge for yourself. I write in every letter that a divine Christ (or
>Christos) has never existed under a human form outside the imagination of
>blasphemers who have carnalized a universal and entirely impersonal
>principle."
>Blavatsky:Collected Writings, Vol. IX:223
>
>"'The coming of Christ', means the presence of CHRISTOS in a regenerated
>world, and not at all the actual coming in body of 'Christ' Jesus."
>Blavatsky:Collected Writings, Vol. VIII:174
>
>So, Todd, you have here a direct word from HPB herself, insofar as you a
>sceptic about later Theosophists. Had the neo-theosophists would have take
>care to study and understand the texts of HPB in its real sense and not only
>from dead letter reading perhaps they would have been not so fast to make
>false claims and terrorize the people with they twisted stuff. Besides, all
>the pseudo-Theosophists, which aim it was and still is to destroy HPB's work
>and turn the Theosophical Movement into the ranks of the Jesuits (Rome),
>claimed to have higher and much more advanved and "ascended" (to where?)
>Masters as HPB had.
>
>
>>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
>
>That is your interpretation, Theosophists have another one. In nature there
>exists no hierarchy as claimed by AB/AAB/CWL. And HPB is supported in this
>view by her successors. So, why do you want me to believe the false claims
>of Bailey and Creme that there is such kind as an occult officers
>bureaucracy.
>
>
>>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.
>
>It does. HPB was the first one. If another one comes later and claims to
>have the same teachers or even higher teachers as HPB has had, we have the
>right to ask to explain the contradictions. And if I get no good answer
>which is sound and which satisfies my mind and my heart as well and if I see
>that these contradictions results in exoteric misunderstanding of the
>esoteric truths HPB brought I am forced to believe that the claims of Bailey
>and Creme are false and a spiritual theft and crime.
>
>> 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
>
>That does not alter the fact that Bailey do not know details of the plan
>which HPB and her successors knew. And the fact that she revealed not all
>she knew si no excuse that people like Bailey which claimed to have the same
>or higher knowledge as HPB are trying to confirm on the dead letter plane
>but fail to grasp the esoteric meaning. And Bailey is purely exoteric. She
>did not add one sententce tothe work of HPB which is true, and that what
>Bailey wrote true, is not new and was simply copied from HPB.
>
>
>>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
>
>As Benjamin Creme has three times false announced the return of Christ (or
>what he believes it is) in the last years I conclude that the return of
>Christ in 1945 was a failure? This poppycock smacks as the same black magic
>as Bailey's "Invocation". You are you and your background powers that you
>try to blow out the real spiritual light out of humanity and try to force
>them to believe in the outer imaginations of the astral powers? Is Share
>indirectly paid by Rome?
>
>>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
>
>You can believe in any person you like and regard him/her as messenger. But
>when a Theosophist uses the term he/she means it in its technical sense and
>that is one who was taught and trained and ordered in the same ashram as HPB
>was the same doctrines with the same message, not otherwise. A Theosophist
>does not use the term for self appointed people or such people who may have
>some insight of any degree. That is another reason for me to be sceptical
>about the claims of Bailey and Creme: How is it possible that they have
>inner knowledge and that they have knowledge about the same doctrines as HPB
>had if they even do not know what for HPB was a messenger?
>Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>