Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00219)

Sorry, I have no idea why the link was broken in my response to the Doctor, but
here it is again, with the same reply below it:
http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/ScienceAndTheSecretDoctrine/index.html

Compiler
-------

compiler@wisdomworld.org wrote:

> Hello Doctor,
>
> I'm not a scholarly type, but I want to ask your opinion, mostly from a
> scientific point of view, that if there are no such wise beings as
> Adepts or Masters at many levels, what was HPB herself if she was
> acting all alone and devising and/or making up a system that simply
> might be useful and helpful to humanity, without the guidance of what
> she said were "Masters of Wisdom" -- or Adepts at various levels.
>
> How could she know so many things on so many subjects (an enormous
> number) that were way way way ahead of the science of her day, which
> were laughed at, ignored, and pooh-poohed back then, that are steadily
> coming true, as the decades roll along, while not one scientific item
> that she ever spoke of has yet to be "Proven" wrong, while so many are
> steadily being "proven right" as the scientific community little by
> little finds out the bits and pieces that they do. Where else is a
> scientific "track record" like this in all of human history -- coming
> from one lone person? Methinks that where there is smoke there is fire.
> Here is a link to a series that paints a picture, to a large degree, of
> what I am referring to. Keep in mind that this is just a small portion
> of this kind of theosophical work, which is that of watching the
> developments of science, year by year, and then comparing and bouncing
> them off of what HPB ever said on the subject. It was written for
> Theosophists, humanity and the scholarly and scientific world of the
> day and time-frame it was written in, pointing out the tremendous mass
> of scientific information that HPB expounded on in her work and
> mission, and where science stood at the time, and where it should head
> and what it should open-mindedly look into. This kind of work is
> constantly going on in the Theosophical Movement in trying to catch the
> attention of humanity:
> http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/ScienceAndTheSecretDoctrine/
> index.html
>
> Plus, as someone operating out of a room, more or less, with almost no
> books and references to speak of, how could she know so much about so
> many subjects that are spoken of in her Isis Unveiled, The secret
> Doctrine, and so on?
>
> She herself joked about this once, in this paraphrased way, I think:
> Pointing out that if she was not being fed this mass of accurate
> information by the Adepts, to present to humanity, so much of it which
> I think was stored away and/or hidden away and located in so many
> remote places in the world, how could she possibly know all about it
> all as well as be so constantly accurate? I think her joke was that if
> people do not believe in the Masters and the fraternity of Adepts, then
> she herself must be considered a triple-Adept. :-)
>
> Since I don't have much more to offer, I will now leave this response
> in the hands of you and others, who are much more knowledgeable than
> me, to comment on for all of us to read and ponder over.
>
> Compiler
> -------
>
> --- In theos-talk@egroups.com, Dr Gregory Tillett <gregory@z...> wrote:
> > Recent discussion in this group has devolved upon the physical existence =
>
> of the Theosophical Masters. Arthur Gregory, Peter Merriott, Daniel (Caldwe=
>
> ll?), Nick Weeks, Bart Lidofsky, and Dallas have each made contributions. A=
>
> lthough I have not previously taken part in any exchanges on this site, I th=
>
> ought in this matter I might add one or two thoughts of my own.
> >
> > In the first place I should note that I have recently completed a Ph.D on=
>
> the subject of the Masters. The thesis (2 vols; 850 pp) is entitled: 'The =
>
> Theosophical Masters: An Investigation into the Conceptual Domains of H. P. =
>
> Blavatsky and C. W. Leadbeater'. Thus it is that you can intuit my interest=
>
> in your discussion. I should note further that I am not a member of the Th=
>
> eosophical Society but a scholar with a longstanding interest in esotericism=
>
> and methodologies for the study of religionist belief.
> >
> > Early in my researches it became clear that all discourse related to the =
>
> Masters was predicated on their physical ontology; that is, their existence =
>
> in time and space. Predictably, perhaps, claims such as those made by Blava=
>
> tsky and Leadbeater (and their numerous disciples and continuators) have alm=
>
> ost without exception been dismissed by commentators on the basis of evident=
>
> ial facticity. Unless the doubting Didymuses can put their Œhands in the si=
>
> de1 of the Masters, then the latter ipso facto cannot be considered to exist=
>
> . Such an epistemological attitude tends to establish opposing camps of tho=
>
> se who believe and those who do not, with any ground in between considered a=
>
> "No Man1s Land". This position (which amounts to an academic "stand-off") =
>
> has led to a deep divide which I would consider to be a species of the relig=
>
> ionist versus reductionist duel which characterises much religious discussio=
>
> n.
> >
> > Inevitably, then, the terrain of Theosophical studies has been made barre=
>
> n for generations of scholars because of faulty methodology. It is simply t=
>
> he case that meta-empirical faith claims are beyond the purview of the schol=
>
> ar, who possesses no methodological tools with which to falsify (or, indeed,=
>
> prove) such assertions. A study of the Masters, after all, is a study of r=
>
> eligious belief. As such, the data may be examined phenomenologically, but =
>
> the meta-empirical truth claims which inhere in such belief are beyond enqui=
>
> ry. Yet the nostrum that religious credal formulae can be dispelled by the =
>
> glare of science, philosophy, or even phenomenology persists to some degree =
>
> in the Academy, and it has been this attitude which has stultified the study=
>
> of Theosophy - and relegated it to a most unsatisfactory context: the socio=
>
> logy of deviance (or 3flight from reason2).
> >
> > For my own work I adopted an empirical methodology predicated upon a pers=
>
> pective of informed agnosticism. There was never any hope - nor any desire =
>
> - on my part to prove or to disprove the historical existence of beings iden=
>
> tified by Theosophists as Masters. This statement should not be taken as an=
>
> early capitulation or as courteous even-handedness. Rather, it is crucial =
>
> to recognise that the Masters may or may not exist, but for any author to pr=
>
> esent a thesis as an attempt to demonstrate 3scientifically2 a personal meta=
>
> physic (an approach which entirely belies his scholarly capacity) would be t=
>
> o pan knowingly for fool1s gold. It is my contention that the Œreality1 of =
>
> the Masters and their function within the discourse of Theosophy remain sepa=
>
> rate concerns, and the latter question (in my opinion) is by far the more in=
>
> teresting enquiry. Here are some of my conclusions.
> >
> > The Masters are a prime phenomenon of the occult. This latter has tended=
>
> to be dismissed by scholars as a function of the sociology of irrationalism=
>
> or, at best, a reactionary revolt against modernity. Yet close observation=
>
> reveals that occultism is by no means a retreat from modernist paradigms, b=
>
> ut a close engagement with the new epistemologies. Occultism, it seems, is =
>
> a special form of critique in which the motifs of esotericism are deliberate=
>
> ly refracted through the prism of secularism. Both Blavatsky and Leadbeater=
>
> provide paradigmatic examples of the rhetoric of occultism; in their indivi=
>
> dual ways they each enthusiastically adopted the discourses of modernity in =
>
> order to argue against what they perceived to be its more pernicious qualiti=
>
> es.
> >
> > Blavatsky attempted to remythify a universe she believed had been denuded=
>
> of its numinosity. Neither Church nor Academy offered sustenance to a worl=
>
> d whose protective divinities were being undermined by materialist science a=
>
> nd Positivist philosophy. Indeed, Blavatsky felt that the Churches and secu=
>
> larist philosophers more or less cancelled each other out: Biblical criticis=
>
> m and comparative mythology had dispelled Christianity1s assertion of unique=
>
> ness and dogmatic truth, while the mute and mechanistic cosmos, as proposed =
>
> by materialism and naturalistic evolutionism, left the world bereft of purpo=
>
> se, design, and contingency. In order to reconsecrate the cosmos - for that=
>
> was her intention - Blavatsky required a new mythos, but one which would be=
>
> acceptable to a society grown wary of deity. The aspirational figure she s=
>
> ought would not be able to occupy the undifferentiated mesocosm of myth, but=
>
> would be required to tread the ground of fact.
> >
> > The Theosophical Master was Blavatsky1s riposte to the successive philoso=
>
> phical and scientific exorcisms which had removed divinity from its hallows =
>
> and, as an unexpected if ironical consequence, led to the 3deanthropomorphis=
>
> ation2 of the world. The Master as a living man could indicate that human l=
>
> ife - even human evolution - need not be under the authority of a blind dete=
>
> rminism. The possibility of attaining physical, spiritual, moral, and sapie=
>
> ntial perfection - which had grown dim in the years since the Enlightenment =
>
> - was literally newly incarnated in the person of the Master, whose position=
>
> of evolutionary preeminence was entirely won through individual effort. Th=
>
> e anthropos, in danger of being relegated to accidental status in the univer=
>
> sal processus, became in Blavatsky1s vision the centrepiece of the great cos=
>
> mic telos; indeed, he was installed once more as the spiritual axis mundi.
> >
> > From esotericism Blavatsky absorbed the idea of an hierarchised cosmos le=
>
> ading from the mundane sphere to the supracelestial. As part of her occult =
>
> dynamic, she reconstrued this hierarchy as a schematised progressivist evolu=
>
> tionism. Thus it was that she could co-opt much of the evolutionist idiom o=
>
> f her day, and reconfigure an otherwise teleologically bereft material dynam=
>
> ic as a divine cosmic process. Such progressivism also underscored the gnos=
>
> ticism of her system, for the trajectory of evolution was deemed to ascend f=
>
> rom the material to the spiritual, with absorption into Absolute Spirit (whe=
>
> nce the human Monad came in the first place) as the ultimate eschatological =
>
> objective.
> >
> > The Master enfleshes Theosophical cosmology in so far as he stands on the=
>
> cusp of reintegration with Spirit. Indeed, he occupies a unique position w=
>
> ithin the system as he alone inhabits the space which is situated at the end=
>
> of human ontology and at the beginning of the infinite unknowable. Consequ=
>
> ently, he is the ideal figure to enact a dialectical interchange between the=
>
> discourses of transcendence and immanence. For the Theosophist, then, the =
>
> Master is proof of the penetration of the divine into the human sphere, and =
>
> an augury of the possibility of humanity transcending its physical limitatio=
>
> ns and communing fully with the divine presence. Thus it is that the Master=
>
> stands at the interstices of the ascent/descent figuration which resides at=
>
> the centre of the Blavatskian vision.
> >
> > Blavatsky presented her Theosophical synthesis not as mythology, but as f=
>
> act. This approach has caused even sympathetic scholars to suspect that her=
>
> esotericism was diminished by contact with rationalist paradigms. Yet in a=
>
> n era characterised by an emphasis on facticity, Blavatsky was simply playin=
>
> g Hermesian games by exploring the transformative potential of mythic facts =
>
> and factual myths. For in order to attract the attentions of a physical Mas=
>
> ter, the aspiring chela needed to be prepared by achieving a comprehensive k=
>
> nowledge of Theosophy via the Theosophical canon (Isis Unveiled, the Mahatma=
>
> letters, and The Secret Doctrine). Yet in a classical artifice, such prepa=
>
> ration itself enacted a form of initiatory transformation which would obviat=
>
> e the necessity for a Master. Thus it was that fact bred mythology, and myt=
>
> hology bred fact.
> >
> > Based on the Masters1 teachings, Blavatsky posited an endless reticulatin=
>
> g process of human Monads engaging in matter and then becoming progressively=
>
> more spiritualised until they reintegrated with the Absolute. Such a cycli=
>
> c process, although presented in the vocabulary of Hindu kalpa theory, is in=
>
> fact an instantiation of a classic gnostic telos of a fall into matter and =
>
> a concomitant ascent to Spirit. The adoption of this favourite leitmotif of=
>
> esotericism allowed Blavatsky to incorporate into her macrohistorical progr=
>
> amme sufficient of the world1s mythologems to present her Theosophy as both =
>
> a pansophic synthesis and as the undiluted prisca theologia. Of prime impor=
>
> tance, it also enabled her to absorb the new temporalities sponsored by palæ=
>
> oanthropology and geology. Thus it was that she could suggest not only that=
>
> there had been Œchapters1 before Genesis (as Darwin1s theory so challenging=
>
> ly implied), but that there were whole Œbibles1 with self-contained eschaton=
>
> s and regenerations. Blavatsky1s cosmology - apparently unlike that of her =
>
> nemesis, the Churches - could thus comfortably contend with the immensity of=
>
> prehistory, and the apparent fact that primordial homo was more simian than=
>
> sapiens.
> >
> > Following Blavatsky1s death, access to the Masters - and the charismatic =
>
> authority such access implied - caused the Theosophical Society to fracture =
>
> into competing factions. With Blavatsky gone, the revelatory and oracular p=
>
> ower guaranteed by her position as mediator of the Masters1 teachings disapp=
>
> eared. Soon, however, Leadbeater rose to prominence in the Adyar Society, i=
>
> n part because the confidence of his assertions of contact with the Masters,=
>
> and the clairvoyant method by which such communication was vouchsafed, seem=
>
> ed unassailable. His claims of being in constant psychic association with t=
>
> he Brotherhood calmed the collective fear that the Masters had abandoned the=
>
> Society or, worse, that they had never been present in the first place.
> >
> > Leadbeater1s clairvoyant revelations remained for the most part within th=
>
> e pre-mapped Theosophical cosmos, thus bolstering the edifice from the insid=
>
> e. Yet he soon set about superimposing his own structure upon the Blavatski=
>
> an model. He drastically truncated her cosmo-historical vision and, in so d=
>
> oing, exaggerated the incline of its progressivist dynamic. Thus it was tha=
>
> t rather than taking many lifetimes of labour, Mastership was attainable in =
>
> a very few. To further speed the process he introduced various forms of the=
>
> urgy which he considered to be evolutionary accelerants. Masonic initiation=
>
> and Christian sacrament were reconstrued as conduits of perfecting power, a=
>
> ble to advance the Monad closer to the ultimate goal: transformation into a =
>
> Master.
> >
> > In sum, then, the Master is the ideal and the template for Theosophists. =
>
> Nevertheless, it should be stressed that his physical ontology is ultimatel=
>
> y of less value than the profundity of the gnosis which he 3conferred2 upon =
>
> the aspiring chelas. Blavatsky, of course, remains the key mediator of the =
>
> Masters1 illuminated gnosticism, and it is from her that the Master gained h=
>
> is rich semiotic potential. Consequently, the Master operates on several he=
>
> rmeneutical levels simultaneously, and as such creates of Blavatskian Theoso=
>
> phy something akin to a grand polyphony. It was my task to discern some of =
>
> the grand associations which Blavatsky consciously invested in her depiction=
>
> of the Masters. Some examples of my conclusions can be ascertained from th=
>
> e following quotation from my thesis:
> >
> > ŒThe Master is the Oriental sage who brings revelatory authority in his w=
>
> ake; he is also the monastic elder whose austerities and 3prayerfulness2 hav=
>
> e earned him God1s ear. He is the personification of Enlightenment perfecti=
>
> bilism, and the ideal of human progress and evolution; he is also the inspir=
>
> ed pædagogue who encourages his charges to penetrate through the text and th=
>
> ereby ascend to divinity. He is the Rosicrucian hero, the embodiment of the=
>
> Ideal and the Real; he is also Enoch-Metatron, God1s angelic lieutenant who=
>
> once was human, and Melchizedek, Œhaving neither beginning of days, nor end=
>
> of life; but made like unto a Son of God1. Perhaps most clearly - and yet =
>
> characteristically elusively - he is Hermes, the daimon of both antithesis a=
>
> nd synthesis1.
> >
> > It is my hope that an empirical and comparative examination of the Master=
>
> s will furnish further examples of Blavatsky1s genius for synthesis. Such r=
>
> esearches must acknowledge, though, that the physical historical existence o=
>
> f the Brotherhood lies beyond their expertise. Crucially, one suspects that=
>
> reducing the vast potentialities of the Master topos to such limited (and b=
>
> anal) questions as 3Did they appear physically at such and such a time?2 wil=
>
> l only serve to deny Theosophy its proper place as a roaring tributary to th=
>
> e great stream of the history of ideas.
> >
> >
> > Brendan French
> > Sydney, Australia.
>