Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00092)

Thursday, July 10, 2003


Dear K. and Friends:

On the subject of Guru and Chela.

As I study Theosophy, I find that the core teachings say we are
all a Ray from the universal ATMA -- the ONE SPIRIT.

If such is the case we are already a part of that ALL and have at
core the identical SOURCE PRINCIPLE of life: ATMA. All the other
"principles" are evidence of the development (evolution) of the
personal element in each of us.

It apparently develops according to the choices it makes along
its own line (its personal Karma).

It is evident that all those advanced PERSONAGES, (by whatever
name called) from the DHYAN CHOHANS down to the local "guru,"
have as distinguishing factor their self-evolution aver closer to
the
ONE SELF.

H P B says in one place that the Higher Manas perfected is the
MAHATMA. And that seems reasonable.

At the end of the VOICE OF THE SILENCE (3rd Fragment) pp 76-79
in my copy, I find the culminating stages of self-development
described in terms that fit all cases.

If we then apply these criteria impersonally and universally, we
can easily discover who among recent personages associated with
the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT comes close to those conditions. And
to them we owe respect and reverent consideration of what they
say or teach.

However no true teacher ever claims authority or tries to make
their chelas follow them blindly.

They invariably present one aspect of the other of the Teachings.
And they leave the application and the practice to those who
desire to learn from their example.

Thus, H P B, to whom we owe all we know of Theosophy said:

"Do not follow me or my Path; Follow the Path I show, the
Masters who are behind."

and so we have guide, doctrine, theory and metaphysical reasoning
to help us make our own independent decisions.

Best wishes,

Dallas

=========================


-----Original Message-----
From: K
Sent:	Thursday, July 10, 2003 5:08 AM
To:
Subject:	Gurus and Chelas (krishnamurti and the white
brotherhood)

(partially quopted)

Hi M,

Let me start by saying that I share some of your ambiguity. It is
quite clear (though not mentioned by you below) that K
himself acted as a sort of guru towards his disciples. The clue
is I
think in how he defined the term guru.

A guru for him is somebody who becomes an authority...

A real guru would never make a disciple dependent. There are
quite a
few quotes from theosophical literature for instance which show
that
in their guru-chela relationship, the guru is actively looking
for
independence and sound judgement in the chela (or disciple).

Occultism is in this sense defined (IMO) as a process of
increasing
independence. Only when that independence has been thoroughly
proven
(probation at various levels), does a 'master' occasionally give
the
student a hint or in exceptional cases: an order (and let's face
it,
the whole theosophical experiment was an exceptional case).

The problem is, that for most of us it is way to comfortable to
give
authority to somebody other than ourselves...we have a tendency
to prefer the certainty of somebody
elses words, opinions and experiences, over our own uncertainties
and
limited knowledge. .... K