One Thousand Flowers (reply to Paul)
Sep 11, 2004 05:34 AM
--- In email@example.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...>
> The bottom line was "how dare you touch the sacred scripture with
> your dirty historical hands"-- which is also the bottom line of
> Theosophists' rejection of historical investigation of the Masters.
So here is a template in which one can fill in the blank:
> "One cannot possibly begin to understand the Theosophical Masters"
> 1. ... *without a lifelong religious devotion to them.* (Eklund,
> would be supported in this to a certain extent by the religious
> studies model.)
> 2. ...*without accepting the genuineness of the paranormal
> attributed to them.* (Caldwell, at least as the objections were
> expressed some years back.)
> 2a. ...*without rejecting the genuineness, etc.* (Meade, by and
> 3. ...*without understanding Blavatsky from a psychological POV in
> terms of multiple personality etc.* (Maroney, as I understand him.)
> 4. ...*without detailed information about Blavatsky's associations
> with Western secret societies, Indian political leaders and
> reformers, etc.* (KPJ)
> This can go on and on and can apply to any figure in religious
> history. What I wish could happen is that a thousand flowers would
> be allowed to bloom without people trying to destroy one another's
> flowers saying they have no right to coexist with the others. The
> application of rigid categories and the insistence that a
> must be understood only in terms of those categories is not just a
> problem of academicians. Humans are hard wired that way, going
> to fight/flight, eat or be eaten. We are also hard wired to
> nuances and entertain multiple perspectives, but perhaps only sages
> can stay at that level on any consistent basis. That evolution is
> proceeding in that direction for humanity at large is my faint hope.
Thank you very much for your thought-provoking reply. As number 5 in
your list I would tentatively add the historical evidence: every
culture has produced seers and there are close similarities in what
they saw at a very deep level. For one thing, many of them clearly
pointed out to oneness as a fundamental, primary reality. KH wrote
that an adept is the flowering of a generation of enquirers. Neither
M. nor KH claimed independence from a historical process. On the
contrary, they clearly stated they were the natural outcome of it.
In a span of almost 130 years a kind of mytholgy was created around
the idea of the Masters. As Daniel showed in one of his recent posts,
after the passing of HPB a number of individuals claimed to be in
contact with them. That list could probably be expanded *ad
infinitum* nowadays since there are many, many groups and individuals
with a similar claim. Yet, consider what Blavatsky herself wrote in
the "Original Programme of the TS":
"(2) They [the Founders] had to oppose in the strongest manner
possible anything approaching dogmatic faith and fanaticismóbelief in
the infallibility of the Masters, or even in the very existence of
our invisible Teachers, having to be checked from the first."
"Belief in the Masters was never made an article of faith in the T.S.
But for its Founders, the commands received from Them when it was
established have ever been sacred."
I think this is important internal evidence to the fact that HPB
never intended that a cult around the idea of the Masters should be
created. Which brings me to refer to the mature Krishnamurti's view
of the Masters. I had the opportunity to visit Krishnamurti centres
in the US (Ojai, California), in England (Brockwood Park) and in
India (Vasantha Vihar and Rishi Valley School). I met and had many
conversations with a number of individuals who knew him closely. From
one such individual I heard a most interesting account of a dialogue
Q: "You have mantained in some of your public talks that the Masters
are not important, that we should not be attached to them, and that
they may not even exist. But there are written descritpions by
yourself, when you were young, that you saw them [M. and KH]. How do
you explain this?"
Krishnamurti's reply was very succint but revealing:
K: "They were two vast people."
Throughout his adult and mature life Krishnamurti refused to
personalise the Masters, although he would use such words
like "benediction", "sacredness" and "otherness". I am aware that
many on this list would not accept this view.
As I said before, the world needs both scholars and sages. KH wrote
that "science is our best ally". In one of his books, Dr Ravi
Ravindra quotes from one of the Indian scriptures: "Prakriti [matter]
is blind without Purusha [spirit], and Purusha is lame without
Prakriti". Perhaps not many people know that David Bohm helped
Krishnamurti to use words more accurately and also investigate the
etymology of key words. A scholar and a sage in dialogue!
Let one thousand flowers bloom.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application