Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00256)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...> 
wrote:
> I googled the term "perfected men" as a quick and dirty method of > 
measuring what it means to different users. Although it was used in 
> the MLs and writings of HPB, it was one among many roughly 
> synonymous terms and was surrounded by disclaimers and qualifiers > 
that make it clear HPB never meant "infallible" or "omniscient" 
> or "omnipotent."

I can certainly understand why you would not be popular with 
theosophical fundamentalists if you make statements like that. 
Especially if you think the object of their supine adoration is not 
infallible.

> Judge, who had 
> an entirely different understanding. He wrote that Masters were so 
> totally different from ordinary men that their physical bodies were 
> unimaginably glorious and regular folks couldn't bear the 
experience 
> of seeing them.

I think it's true. I don't think you could stand the sight of my 
body and I am not even perfected. Blavatsky had a glorious body that 
nobody could stand to look at, especially with that cigarette 
dangling off her lip. If Judge had ever visited the barber and taken 
a shave people probably would have discovered they could not stand to 
look at him either. So I would say it is true.