Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00167)

Hi Frank,

In my previous e-mail I explained my position again. In
this one I will respond to some of your assumptions.

the following one seems extremely ludicrous to me:

> But only an adept (usually the messenger) has the power
> to have communication with the Masters. 
Isn't it obvious that (some accepted) chelas have
communications with the masters too? In fact, that if
masters inspire scientists, that there are then in fact
communications going on? I do agree (perhaps that is what
you mean) that only adepts have full control over their
communications. That is what makes them adepts. But even
Damodar had communications with mahatmas. He was obviously
a chela (though an advanced one). 

> 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.
Again, not true for Damodar. Nor for Subba Row. And in
fact, I don't think it is true for Olcott. 
> 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.
This is obviously speculation. 
> And as both Besant and Leadbeater were no messengers the
> Masters are warning
> both to stop this Master poppycock.
Well, my interpretation is that they were saying: 
-make the TS and the ES unsectarian.
-don't create mayas around us, by stessing this
mahatma-stuff (which they also warned about when HPB was
alive, BTW).
> So again I find nothing in this quote which goes against
> the status of the
> messengers, but on the contrary it supports the
> messengers.
Well, I disagree. 
> 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.
No, I see it as going against all worshipping (which is
different from respecting) powers outside of self. That
includes mahatmas. Do I have to remind you that they never
claimed to be all-powerful? So no reason to worship them. 

Though I do agree some people come with messages from the
Lodge. I regard anybody as messenger in that sense who
works for the wellfare of humanity in a direction that the
masters support. But that does not mean (which is something
that does seem to be implied in calling for instance Bailey
or de Purucker messengers) that these people are messengers
in all aspects of their life, or in all that they say. 
> 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?
Well, I can agree with that. HPB was no god, she was very
human. 
> 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. 
Well, being faithfull and working in the direction of the
mahatmas is a very different thing. It reminds me of a
discussion we had in Naarden this weekend (Mary Anderson
was visiting for a few days, within her European tour) on
devotion. Devotion (like faithfullness) is such a passive
word. I seems to imply a passive attitude of doing what
needs to be done, without much (or any) self-initiative.
Chelas and people who aspire to be such, are admonished to
be ACTIVE (sorry for the caps). Terms like creativity,
intuition, daring, trying, fire come to mind. And when
you've had all that, yes, devotion and faithfullness in
your own divine spirit and in the fact that you are not
doing this work all by yourself, in the sense of: there is
(spiritual) help out there and there are other people
working in the same direction. But to assume that there
will be people physically present the whole time, that
seems (sorry) foolish. Why would the lodge spend their
energy personally? When we know that impersonal-ness is
their trademark? 
> equal as there is no quote to find which rejects the
> succession of esoteric
> teachers coming from the Lodge.
There isn't? Well, what about the idea that there is going
to be a messenger at the end of the 20th century, not
before? 

> As the pupil chooses his
> own teacher likewise the teacher chooses his pupils.
Well, that is a Judge-idea (letters that have helped me)
that I don't agree with. The Mahatma M. said to Hartmann,
(Coll. Wr. VIII, p. 446):
>> Let me give you an advice. Never offer yourself as a
chela, but wait until chelaship descends by itself upon
you. Above all, try to find yourself, and the path of
knowledge will open itself before you, and this so much the
easier as you have made a contact with the Light-ray of the
Blessed one, whose name you have now taken as your
spiritual lode-star. [He became a Buddhist]>>

> 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. 
The Masters *allowed* nothing. The practical administrative
stuff was always left for the workers to do. The Mahatmas
simply never interfered with that stuff, unless
specifically asked to do so (see letters to Sinnett for the
only occasion they did interfere). So the splitt was not
interfered with for no other reason than that, IMO.
> 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.
This seems to assume the TS was meant to be a school for
occultists. Which, again, they claimed it was not. 

Well,
this was my two cents,
Katinka

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/