Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00359)

>From: <info@blavatskyarchives.com>

> Bill, you wrote:
>
> ". . . [Here on Theos-Talk there is] a group of 'believes-in-masters'
> people, led by Daniel and some others, (although they will most
> likely claim they are being led by HPB and the Masters) (and maybe
> they are). . . ."
>


Actually this is what I said in a fuller context:

As I see it developing here, a group of "believes-in-masters" people, led by
Daniel and some others, (although they will most likely claim they are being
led by HPB and the Masters) (and maybe they are) is excited by the prospect
of proving yet another group of "believes-in-personal-god" people wrong.
The first volley of Words has already been launched. I wonder if Words
from the Theosophical Masters go as far in proving the existence of such
Masters as Words from God go in proving the existence of God?


> I find this reference by you intriguing, to say the least.
> Who belongs to this "group" besides me? Nicholas Weeks, Dallas
> TenBroeck, Steve Stubbs or ...... ?



Are you denying that you "believe-in-masters"?



> For example, a while ago on Theos-Talk Steve Stubbs wrote:
>
> ". . . the only proof we can have of the masters' historical
> existence is testimony from a qualified witness, and we have that
> from Olcott. . . . Olcott's testimony is sufficient in my judgment to
> establish their corporeal existence as legal persons. . . . I cannot
> agree with anyone that they were fictions, fantasies, imagined
> beings, trance personalities, or any such thing as that unless the
> Olcott evidence can be satisfactorily disposed of. I raised that
> question some time ago, and no one has ever addressed it, so for that
> reason I remain stubbornly convinced that the mahatmas were real men
> as they were claimed to be."



Steve makes the assertion that HPB's masters were real[ly] men. If it
makes you feel good to claim that Steve and you are members of the same
group then I am happy for you. Some people do find it important belong to
certain groups while forming loyalties and allegiances. However, the issue
I raised, when dealt with in the context of belief in "personal gods", is
whether belief in superhuman entities (Masters) [as contrasted to 'real
men'] is not in theosophical 'essence' the same belief as belief in personal
gods. My point was that both groups use Words as weapons to prove an
essential belief that is best undertaken experientially. What does your
master tell you about this? Or does your master communicate with you? Or
do you even have a master? Word has it that KH had a master who had a
master and so we might theosophically surmise that an entity has developed
[evolved according to the theosophical model] that is quite capable of
creating worlds where other lesser masters could only create tea cups. Do
you deny the probability that such a powerful being exists? How about the
possibility?

Daniel, my sincere apologies for using your name in my post. However I did
use your name and for that I have tried to respond politely to you here. I
consider my original post understandable in the context of the posts that
went before and after. So far no one else but you has indicated difficulty
understanding what I meant and several others have responded to the thread.
Hopefully with this explanation I have made it clear to you. I consider this
dialogue complete from my end although you may continue to quote out of
context and ask prosecutorial type questions until you stop.


Bill

//cut