Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00153)

Frank:
Dear Katinka,
believe it or not, but what you wrote is completely wrong. I do not want to
make you angry and I do not want to attack your personality, but I answer
your statements/questions as best as I can and leave it up to you to think
this over or not. I regard your statement as serious so I assume you have
nothing against a likewise serious answer, despite it doesn't support you,
but I assume you want an answer and not false compliments.

Katinka:
Now this *messenger*-stuff is interesting. Alice Bailey and
Benjamin Creme also claimed (and claim) to be messengers.
On Blavatsky-archives Nicholas Weeks wrote an article about
that:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/baileyal.htm

I think some of the quotes and comments he has apply to de
Purucker as much as they do to Bailey. For instance he
says:

>> Many people are eager to have a constant presence of
godly elder brothers guiding their lives and civilization;
which happens to be just what Bailey and Leadbeater and
much of the New Age promises, thus its popularity.
Spiritual evolution, says Theosophy, takes place because of
our "self-induced and self-devised efforts," {The Secret
Doctrine, TUP, vol. 1, 17} not from our prayers and
invocations for Christ and his Hierarchy to govern
civilization. >>

Frank:
And? What is your interpretation of that?
Do you want me to say that this quotes supports your believe that no
messengers were working within the Theosophical Movement after HPB (I assume
you at least regard HPB as a messenger of the Lodge???!)?
If so, then you are wrong this quote says nothing against the fact that
there were messengers out among Theosophists. On the contrary, not only that
I do not find anything against it in it, this quotes supports my position
that messengers existed as in the beginning of the quotes the wrong idea by
self-styled gurus like Bailey and Leadbeater (I limit myself to the names
given in the quote, other names could be added) that any ordinary
Theosophist is able to have communication and even hints or orders from the
Masters (Elder Brothers is a term applied to the Masters). Perhaps you have
misread it assuming that Messengers are meant.
I am not quite sure if you understand what is meant with the term messenger.
A messenger is the link between the pupils and the Master. Those uninformed
Theosophists, overwhelmed with the impression that there is no training, no
education, no personal development necessary to become a coworker of the
Masters were blind and blinded likewise their followers. Unless a lay chela
makes not big progress upon many life times it will be impossible for the
Masters to hold *individual* connection with him/her. Bailey and Leadbeater
wanted to draw the Masters down to our level by invocations, prayer and
devotion. But that is an illusion. We must come up to them. And that is what
the Masters through their messengers teach.


Katinka:
He also quotes the Mahatma-letter to Annie Besant (written
in 1900, to be found on my website) which says:

>>Is the worship of a new Trinity made up of the Blessed
M[orya], Upasika [HPB] and yourself [Besant] to take the
place of exploded creeds? We ask not for the worship of
ourselves... The cant about "Masters" must be silently but
firmly put down. Let the devotion and service be to that
Supreme Spirit alone of which one is a part. Namelessly
and silently we work and the continual references to
ourselves and the repetition of our names raises up a
confused aura that hinders our work. >>

Frank:
How do you interpret this quote? It says nothing else that the cant about
the Masters must be stopped as both Besant and Leadbeater lived under the
wrong impression as if they are in direct communications with the Masters.
But only an adept (usually the messenger) has the power to have
communication with the Masters. All the lays which had sometimes (as an
Century exception, not as a rule) communication from (one way) Masters had
these not from their own power or own inner authority but only via the then
messenger. Sinnett, Olcott etc. had their communication not directly but
only via HPB. So likewise with all others.
I leave it up to you to find out via which messenger Besant got the 1900
letter. When Alice L. Cleather, despite an I.G. member nevertheless a lay as
the I.G. was only one degree about the E.S., once wrote that the attacks on
Besant were not from Judge but from Tingley she might have unconsciously
spoken out an occult truth, not clear to herself.
And as both Besant and Leadbeater were no messengers the Masters are warning
both to stop this Master poppycock.
So again I find nothing in this quote which goes against the status of the
messengers, but on the contrary it supports the messengers.

Katinka:
and In 1882 HPB's Master Morya wrote:

>> A constant sense of abject dependence upon a Deity which
he regards as the sole source of power makes a man lose all
self-reliance and the spurs to activity and initiative.
Having begun by creating a father and guide unto himself,
he becomes like a boy and remains so to his old age,
expecting to be led by the hand on the smallest as well as
the greatest events of life... The Founders (31) prayed to
no Deity in beginning the Theosophical Society, nor asked
his help since. Are we expected to become ... nursing
mothers...? Did we help the Founders? No; they were helped
by the inspiration of self-reliance, and sustained by their
reverence for the rights of man, and their love for a
country [India]... Your sins? The greatest of them is your
fathering upon your God the task of purging you of them.
This is no creditable piety, but an indolent and selfish
weakness. Though vanity would whisper to the contrary,
heed only your common sense. >>{Letters From the Masters of
the Wisdom, First Series, 107.}

Frank:
Here also I find nothing what goes against the fact that certain
theosophical students which were ready were taught by teachers which came
from the Lodge with a message. That quote goes against worshipping of Gods.
But what has the work of a messenger to do with that?
Doe you want me to say that Theosophists are so silly to intermix a God with
a messenger? What HPB then also a God? Or was HPB no messenger?

Katinka:
This same goes for the assumption that someone is a
messenger and that if people are faithful, someone will
appear that will help you in your struggle. This is
something that De Purucker advises, and which is
fundamentally outside of the HPB/Mahatma-system.

Frank:
Wrong. Throughout the writings of HPB, Judge and others you can find hints
that they knew in which way the Masters work and that messengers must come
to train certain people ready to receive truths. Until the 1930's it was not
allowed by Master to reveal the facts in which way in detail the Lodge works
because of fear to create new misunderstandings, worshipping and blind
believing. Despite the fact that both Judge and Tingley were forbidden by
Masters to reveal the details (except to their pupils of course) you can
find many hints that they were well aware who they were and what they were
doing.

Furthermore, even if you read this several hints from HPB and Judge that
messengers will come and that they are the link to the Masters which must
not to be broken and that they should appear without interruption in serial
order ("Keep the link unbroken" = Open your eyes and recognize the new
messenger by your own judgment and not by blind believe) and you
nevertheless cannot believe after serious consideration, using your
intuition and your logic - even then it should be noted that we go at least
equal as there is no quote to find which rejects the succession of esoteric
teachers coming from the Lodge.

Not every Theosophist must be striving to become a pupil of a teacher and
not every one will be invited and not every one will be fit for that. So if
someone rejects a teacher or does not want to have any, the teacher will not
come to him and force him to believe in him/her. As the pupil chooses his
own teacher likewise the teacher chooses his pupils. Those who are not ready
to withstand or even to grasp the truths he/she has to offer if free to
leave and go his/her own way.
Purucker said ("Dialogues") that this was the very reason why the Masters
allowed the so-called split of the TS in 1895, because they wanted to set
aside those students who were fit to been taught. You can never teach anyone
who is unfit, you know that as a teacher. You cannot go in the 1st class to
the little boys and girls who cannot write or read and discuss with them
Shakespeare, they are unfit for that.
The same wrote HPB in a letter were she hinted to the coming theosophical
school in the West and the question where the Headquarters is, in Adyar or
elsewhere. She wrote that the Headquarters will be there, were after her
death the most of her pupils will be. Some of the London pupils were going
their own way as they obviously lost confidence or overview, but most as
Henry T. Edge, Charles Ryan etc. went to Katherine Tingley to Point Loma
from 1899 on.