Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00443)

Bill wrote:

<<. . . Daniel, I have done my best to explain. I do 
hope that it suffices. Researching the accounts of 
various historical events for evidence that 'adepts' 
exist is a poor methodology which I am not inclined to 
pursue further. I do not need Olcott's testimony or 
your charts to validate my belief in extraordinary men 
and women capable of extraordinary 
complishments.>> 

I'm wondering what might be a somewhat "b/Broader" 
definition for the likes of "assertively individual" or 
"self reliant" interpretations. When people have an 
interest in Theosophy, for example, aren't they 
expressing a somewhat transcendent (or "spiritual") 
or a somewhat "b/Broader" interest in whatever might 
even as much as seem suggestive of "s/Self"-related 
reliance, permanence, satisfaction, etc., in some 
possibly Meaningful Enough and Foolproof way? If 
one is to begin accessing or "living in" that kind of 
Reliance (by way of whatever interpretive slant or "reality"), I suspect
that the primary importance/relevance in such a pursuit would have to do
with the study of "whatever" (in a sense, to an extent!) might promote
such "s/Self r/Reliance" by whatever karmically-related/influenced angle
. . . 

And, thanks to all that commotion between Blavatsky, 
Olcott, Brigitte, Danielle, Bart, Paul, Dallas, Gerald, 
Coulombs, etc., etc., some of us MIGHT (?) become somewhat more inclined
to somewhat more-meaningfully realize something or other about the need
to assess things somewhat more "s/Self-r/Reliantly," say, maybe, (if in
our various ways) . . .

I "tend to suspect" that HPB/Masters (whoever) 
might've been smart enough to know (consciously!?) 
that what really mattered, in terms of a certain kind of "realistic
applicability," was a certain kind of "overall or average effect"---
along with various "specific effects"---of their writings, and apparent
"lives":

That is, if their goal was to foster certain kinds of 
more meaningful "s/Self r/Reliance," (where concepts 
of "self" and "reliance" might be seen in some kind of 
more meaningful---no matter how "less 
conscious"---interpretive inter-relationship with 
transcendent "Self" and "Reliance"), then, I wonder if 
they (whoever they all "really were") might have 
purposely entered into their various tasks with a 
unique, single goal: that in order to promote, say, 
"truer froms of self reliance," they would do a number 
of things, simultaneously, in keeping with various 
perceived karmic realities: that (they would/might 
know that), among other things, various controversies 
might be helpful as a means of possibly weaning some 
people away from "mother," as it were, to some extent 
. . . But of course I don't know what "really" went on, then. I'm just
wondering about all that.

And, mind you, I just wrote: "in keeping with various 
karmic realities" . . . "intentionally meaning" by that, "I think," that
there might be various interpretive and "esoteric" aspects, "out
there," to such as "contrasting concepts" between esoteric and
exoteric Theosophy . . . maybe . . . 

So, in a sense, I tend to "wind up" kind of thanking 
some somewhat "more inter-reactive" people like 
Brigitte, Paul, Daniel, etc., for their way of fostering what I tend to
see as some somewhat more meaningful forms of self-reliance, "I think" .
. .

And, as an example of how some imaginative 
possibilities can get rolling, sometimes (just 
incidentally!): just today I happened to drive by a 
small group of people who, judging by their clothes, 
might've been from India, I thought (to start with). I glanced at them
for a second, and drove on. But as I drove I realized that one of them
seemed very similar (in terms of general appearance, rather than
particulars) to Olcott's description of one of the "Masters": he wore
an orange turban, loose fitting clothes, a full beard, and he had a
unique mustache that looked as if it had been twirled with the fingers
and made to curve up toward the ears. I didn't see if the mustache
extended to the ears, as in Olcott's account. As I passed this unique
looking individual, he seemed to make a quick gesture in my direction,
(I think it was a combination of half raised arm and a nod), and he
apparently/possibly made a quick passing comment while looking in my
direction. Certainly his appearence seemed very much in keeping with 
the nineteenth century, at any rate. Not that I'm suggesting that he
was one of the "Masters," but he DID seem very similar, in a general
way, to Olcott's description of one of them (about which I read about
not too long ago). And of course Olcott's encounters were, very
apparently, far more involved. 

Even if I had a far more involved experience, myself, 
with one of those "original, bearded Masters," (if that 
were possible!), I'd have to be kind of short sighted, "I think," to
tell about it too straighforwardly, especially as (for example) the
times we're in would seem to be generally regarded as "modern," (among
other things!?); and so, in keeping with the changing shapes and styles,
over the centuries, of various anomalies and "winged weirdies" that some
of us have read about, (say?), many of us might opt to suppose that such
as "the Masters" ought to also "keep up with the times," basically, or
else lose credibility . . . or something like that, maybe . . . ? Or
are there 
Theosophists out there who hold fast only to some 
"original Masters" (bearded or not?)? 

Speculatively,
Mauri