Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00409)

Dallas,
Thanks for your comments as always. Respectfully I differ from your 
expressed point of view in several ways. As the thread topic of most recent posts 
has involved a rather intense airing on the topic of Freedom of Expression vis 
Theosophical points of view and attempts by Adyar or others to govern, mediate, 
restrict or censor the Free interchange of idea's, views, and perspectives as 
well as the free investigation delving into the integral reality of the Human 
and his Economy of Constitution I am a bit surprised at your response. I 
always place value on your willingness to be open as this is a benchmark Madame 
Blavatsky perennially campaigned for and about. 

As to the use of "Nirmanakaya " we have an honest difference of opinion in 
our point of view. I never used the term "Mahatma" in my post and if I had 
intended to indicate I would have as it is different to me than my use of 
Nirmanakaya from my view. Please understand I never intended to indicate Mahatma 
directly or obliquely in my usage of Nirmanakaya so that at least from the 
perspective of my post should not enter into this discussion.

You are right, the question I posed was out of curiosity, certainly there 
is no sin in that as it was a major impelling force that was so very important 
as a prime purpose in the original formation of the Theosophical Society in 
1875. If curiosity were to have been banished then what success in membership 
would have occurred? I reserved the right to be "curious," it has always served 
me well, if I had not been curious in the first place you would probably 
never had seen me subscribed to this Forum.

In the History of Theosophy published there are manifold narratives by 
Madame Blavatsky, A. P. Sinnett, Henry Steele Olcutt, Damador, and many others, 
at seems to me a couple of dozen important personalities have openly made 
mention of their own experiences. When reading of the Yoga of India and the 
Tibetans there are numerous published indications of personal experiences. It is in 
the open and not withheld. Nor have the known incidents that were antecedent to 
1875 been found to expressly use the term "Mahatma" when addressing the 
personage that was source of the event. Borborka wrote "H. P. Blavatsky, Tibet and 
Tulku" and informed many of Theosophy who value his work on this same subject. 
Tulku's are "Skywalkers," Nirmanakaya. The Dalai Lama is Tulku. In the 
Christian Gospel the Disciples saw Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration in his 
Transformation Form, to me this is also correlate with the wide tradition that 
Blavatsky wrote so much about and represented to the Western world in free full 
view for the expansion of their consciousness.

Also Madame Blavatsky as you previously posted made mention that William 
Quan Judge himself was a portion of her own higher beingness, which is one 
reason I asked the question, there is also a teaching on "Pan Determination" about 
multiple simultaneous Bi-location of Consciousness that can be performed, 
another reason I asked the question, this is also Historical to the World and 
certainly not unique to the two Mahatma's of Theosophy.
I realized when I posted the question that of course a positive response 
would not be capable of providing any proof one way or another so I agree with 
you on that but there is no harm in asking a question.
I put it to all on the Forum not limited to any specific person.

If I remember right there were people that the Mahatma's made visitation 
too just to jostle their dilettante consciousness for better or for worse, some 
proved to change their direction in life, others ridiculed it all in a 
"denial" response, be that as it may it did become a record of significance that 
still is presented to new people and old, in some cases there was no serious work 
found in some up to that point in their life that would be commendable in 
terms of Theosophy.

you seem to assign freely in the case, uniquely, attributes to others, 
selfishness, one up-manship unnecessarily, I see you view but tend to not align 
to that in my personal perspective. Why propose this in the first place?

Dallas, we do not all here on this Forum take the same stance and point of 
view as is manifoldly evident, there is also virtue in Granting Beingness to 
others as there is no such single Homogeneity to be found as far as I can 
perceive, that may be my own short coming, but Universals are not obtainable at 
the corporeal level else there would be observable empirical evidence that we 
could all see by direct inspection. Ideals inspire, we live in this reality for 
the time being.

What "Rule of Secrecy?" Should we no burn all those Theosophical Books 
because they had stated so clearly many instances akin to the question I posed? I 
am not under a "Sworn Rule of Secrecy" the ideal state of the Being is to 
communicate with total Freedom is the maxim I operate under regardless of the 
volitional choices of others. I do respect the others knowing that there is a 
wide differentiation in their private context.

I all honesty, I did also have a personal perspective when I asked the 
question that as to your question "what has been learned?" contributed to posing 
the question, there has been quite a bit of discussion here about "The Next 
Messenger" in regard to 1975 AD, my reasoning is that if such were to be the 
case it is possible that there might have been similar operations of 
presentments concurrent to such becoming and active process. I for one do not expect a 
"Christ" or "Maitreya" in any context of immediate sense. What would seem most 
likely to me is the appearance of some "Proper Gradient" in the context of the 
origination's of that "Next Messenger."

Like it or not the proof in the pudding is that what happened after 
Blavatsky that transformed one format into another format in my view was that 
people reverted to a resonance that equivocated to fondness for the Astral complete 
with form and imagery along with their having been presented with a new 
Manifold Schematic of Hierarchy mediated by the momentarily suppressed Western 
Religiosity which when Blavatsky passed reappeared in full force but in new 
clothing provided by the known originators of such. Morten has written in various 
contents about apsects of this transformation. The Crux of this matter is that 
people in vacuum decide "I only have what I have" and what they find they have 
had that served them can now serve them once again, the important thing to 
them is to have "something" that can be "real" to them. So it goes individual and 
collective personal decision are made. What Theosophy could do is to define 
the appropriate "Gradient" once again for it's public and make it what they 
most will "Reach" for.

I think a lot of people that join this Forum did not join it to study 
"Philosophy" per se but due to a sincere interest to delve into a deeper knowledge 
of Theosophy as it is found Historically and at present. I do not see 
extensive Dialectic of any school as the main topic found here. Most of the time 
threads are about whether the Mahatma Letters are real or not and various other 
things attendant to them.

Dallas please receive my very best regards, wishes and respect for you and 
your constancy arid work,

John 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]