Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00020)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Frank Reitemeyer" <ringding@b...> wrote:

> Sherab, yes of course there is a lineage. ... Also 
> there is a Guruparampara, that is a serial line of 
> teachers, torchbearers, coming one after another, and 
> at special times together. The outer-world guruparampara, 
> the Hermetic chain, in the modern theosophical movement, 
> which was scheduled as the modern exoteric Mystery school 
> by its founders, was unbroken from 1875 to 1942. This 
> guruparampara is built by persons which by other means 
> are also called "messengers". This technical term means 
> that there comes one with a message of the lodge, which 
> he delivers (only) to those who are ready.

Then by this I should understand that the last open messenger,
but not a master, of the "modern theosophical movement" or 
"mystery school", was G. De Purucker? 

> The four messengers who built the holy chain in the outer 
> world were: 1. HPB 2. Judge 3. Katherine Tingley 4. Gottfried
> de Purucker.

It surprises me that there is no mention of any of the
acknowledged Tibetan Masters that have found there way
down out of the Himalaya in the last 50 years to teach
that have passed on from foreign soils. Does the modern
theosophical movement here not consider these fully 
realized and commonly acknowledged enlightened beings 
to be theosophists too?

> There are many ways how messengers work. Not all messengers
> are allowed to make public statements about their occult 
> status (so with Judge), only the closiest pupils are informed
> (in the case of Judge he transformed at an ES Convention to 
> his real, asiatic body). 

I am not familiar with this incident. Could you give a little
more detail as to explain?

> Purucker as one of the highest Adepts which ever 
> entered the Western hemisphere was one of the 
> messengers who were able to speak openly about 
> their status. P. was a high Tibetan Adept.

Do you mean that Purucker had attained the level of the
"Path of Seeing", an arhat?

> Please consider that this are the views of the Point Loma 
> school and that not all lineages in the broad theosophical 
> movement accept this. 

Thank you for acknowledging this. It is noted that the names
of the teachers of the other branches of the modern theosophical 
movement were not mentioned but were taken into account.

> A good source is f.e. the twelve vol. set "Esoteric 
> Teachings" by G. de Purucker, available from Point 
> Loma Publications

Thanks again, I have read them all.

So to summarize, there are members of the modern theosophical
society and those who are not members that have come into contact
with the published works of the 'messengers' who abide by the 
precepts of the teachings. These 'living links' embody the 'spirit'
of theosophy and when by the merit of their own efforts have 
revealed to them more of the teachings as they are ready to
receive. The message of the path of compassion appears in all
the wisdom traditions of the world.

If there is any one teaching in all of HPB works that I could
point to, it is that of the fundamental proposition of what is
"occult", and that is, that which is behind the word or the 
"dead letter" as Frank has put it. In other words the spirit and 
intent of the teaching that is to be understood. 

With that in mind, then why is there all this bickering, arguement, 
and discord in this forum? If anything I would expect that the 
dialogue here would be about what IS in accord between the various 
theosophical branch views. And if there are issues of discord then 
they should be agreeably enumumerated and there should be a full and 
open face debate in assembly with the expectation that the losing 
party adopt the view of the victor. Is this not the way a living 
tradition works?

It seems to me that too many people come to theosophy and turn away 
because of this arrogance of View. Does not the Skandha of 
Formations, intellect, note that of the 26 unvirtuous mental 
occurences, View: View based on perishable aggregates, View of 
holding to extremes, Opposite view, Holding one's views as supreme, 
and Holding one's morality and discipline as supreme, are all 
considered to be un-wholesome?

Please be kindly in heart with all.
Sherab