Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00700)

Jan 21 2005

Dear friends and A:


Lets consider the subject of HPB's WORK AND THE MASTERS


We receive questions about HPB and her work. She was emphatically not a
"shell." She was an Adept and worked as such. 

There are apparently times when an Adept can allow a Brother Adept to use
as their "vehicle" the body that one has to use in any one incarnation. But
the Adept, "owner of the body" does NOT lose consciousness -- only "stands
aside" for a while as HPB describes it clearly.  

It is unimportant that you may interpret things you study differently from
myself. That is always true among students. But trying to make statements
fit one's prejudgments is not part of the learning process, as I see it.
No one can afford to study Theosophy selectively and according to ones
predetermined aims, interests or prejudices. Or that study will prove only
a mirror of the personal bias one has introduced and imposed. All that has
been excluded will be seen by others, who will conclude that the views and
statements made by that individual 
are limited by his selected and personal "filter."

What is important is THEOSOPHY as a body of knowledge that we can test
independently. Who or how it was recorded does not matter in the least. It
is a record of IDEAS, as doctrines, and a STATEMENT of HISTORICAL FACTS.  

How else can the "golden grain" be sifted from the chaff of useless errors?

It is totally unimportant as to "who" did what in providing the teachings of
Theosophy.   

They are provided for us to study, check and verify on our own. Obviously
while we may appreciate the statements that HPB or the Masters made, who
they were, and how they made them available has no bearing on the accuracy
or the value of the information.

Olcott and others, who were contemporaries of HPB, and watched her at work,
made a record of what they were interested in and saw.
  
That was the superficial, the physical objective side of the work. But they
apparently were not able in all cases to go BELOW the events and ask
themselves why things were done as they were. They got "stuck" on the
wonder and the phenomenal side. They did not seem to value the profundity
of the philosophy.

I would say we have an advantage. That is because we can survey and study
the whole of the philosophy. We are not bound by the methods used (we were
not there). Hence we only have the record of how others saw them being
provided. And from that, how they drew their
conclusions -- correct or incorrect.  

If we use that (purely superficial view) as our "peg" of interest, we can
get hung up on that. The question is how do we move on, how do we
universalize our outlook? Others do not have our particular interest, and,
hence we ought to ask: What is it that they may see that we are missing?
If we go at study that way, we can widen our view, and add theirs as a
partial approach to consider. We also have to make sure that their view is
reasonable and impersonal.

Neither you nor I, nor anyone, is able to review independently (unless we
are Adepts and can read the Akasic record) the early days and methods of
communicating, nor is it at all important as to who or why HPB (or the
Masters) did all she (or They) did.

She did it. They did it. It is for our benefit if we wish to profit from
it. But it (Theosophy) was written for the world at large. In this you will
see that we build our own "barriers." We seem to find a "roost," and on
those we may be establishing the "perches" of our interest.  
They are only stages or steps, and as such: Those if alone chosen, may
obscure the whole picture. We have to consider how to get around them.

Let us remember that theosophical truths are facts in Nature and
can be verified independently by all who are interested. Hence
only those things that are universal, impartial, eternal, virtuous,
reasonable, and intuitional will be found to the "true at all times,
to all people, and in all places or areas." They relate to the eternal
principles 
ATMA (the Higher Self) and BUDDHI (wisdom acquired from experience).  

We are the ones who can profit (from the recorded Message of Theosophy) if
we will, and, use what was taught. BUT WE HAVE TO PROVE TO OURSELVES THAT
IT IS VALUABLE.  

No one can advance their view or stand as an "authority" for anyone. To
seek for the "who" is unimportant and is only curiosity. If any one of us
thinks that they know everything, or can stand in judgment over HPB and
Masters, then they are making a most serious blunder. The work of an Adept
can only be checked and verified by another Adept who has a thorough
understanding of the fundamentals that Theosophy offers. If we do not have
those, then we are only curious and not serious. We have merely discovered
a new toy to amuse us for a while.

Can I assume that you really wish to probe deeper ?

May I offer as a concept: As a fundamental idea we are told that the
CONSCIOUSNESS that we employ is unitary (for us, as we have each our own).
It derives directly from the ATMA the Higher Self, which is One with all
ATMAN. It animates successively Buddhi (wisdom) and Manas (the thinking
principle). Manas offers a link of intelligence (of the powers of the
Higher Mind) to that Monadic intelligence that has developed through the
lower kingdoms until it has developed a "vehicle of matter" -- which is
sensitive enough to receive and mirror an aspect of BUDDHI-MANAS -- the
Higher Mind. This "vehicle" is that aggregation of skandhas (living monads
themselves) which are drawn by our and their Karma around the developing
Monadic consciousness that is our "Individual Self" and which we are able
to call here and now our Lower-Manasic self. It is the brain-consciousness
and in each incarnation it is limited. But, although limited, it has the
potentiality of contacting and linking itself to the Highest source (ATMA)
of its own consciousness --its HIGHER SELF.

This mirror is, in each of us, that which has been called the Lower Mind or
Kama-Manas. But, note that along with that is also the ONE CONSCIOUSNESS
which pierces up and down the 7 planes of being and serves to uphold the
memory of the experiences on each of those planes." ( Gita Notes pp.
98-100) The level of Kama-Manas is one such level. (see SD I 157-8, 181)

Therefore that which survives death is the immortal aspect of ourselves.
that grows constantly while the many changing personalities come and go,
fade or leave a favorable impress on the eternal EGO.

Turning now to some other remarks you make: (see below) JEROME wrote:

" Just a footnote on the way the S.D. was assembled. HPB handed
Archibald and Bertram Keightley the MSS of the SD "	SNIP

Yes, it was interesting.

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

Q & A dialog:



D	However let me observe that the Masters, apparently as a group,
work together as a true brotherhood.  

HPB is one of their number (they say this in various places, even calling
her "our brother," and "He."

I found that interesting also. But -- Were they referring to HPB, or the
Adept who was running the "shell" at the time? I am inclined to think the
latter.

----------------------------------

DTB	that is totally unimportant. Theosophy as a philosophy is what we
are studying.

----------------------------------


D	They do not equate the physical form named H. P. Blavatsky with
"HPB" the indwelling INTELLIGENCE that used that form. This distinction
ought to be carefully noted. HPB herself often drew attention to this
fact. When HPB stepped aside to let one of the Masters use the "form" she
remained consciousness and aware of the process, she writes and said.)
Olcott in "Old Diary Leaves" notes the changes that occurred when HPB lent
her personality voluntarily to another "Master" to use and write through.
She also explains this elsewhere in letters to her family that were
reprinted in PATH magazine, Vol. 9, and 10, where Mr. Judge reprinted them
along with his comments.

I find those letters interesting, but I interpret them differently than you
do.

----------------------------------

DTB	That is your privilege. Make sure you do understand them.

-----------------------------------

 
D	The whole of the MAHATMA LETTERS and HPB's LETTERS TO A.P.SINNETT
carry information which was written for the instruction of chelas. Much of
it was entirely private and therefore it was often asked that
sections if not the entire letter NOT BE PUBLISHED.

I noticed that. But then, HPB said that some subjects were not allowed to be
taught when ISIS was written, but by the writing of SD, she was allowed to
amplify and correct those exact subjects, and said that by then, it was
permitted to be taught.

---------------------------------------

DTB	Quite true but the decision was made by the Adepts as can be seen by
the intervening articles and letters that have been published. The history
of that is all there.

--------------------------------------


D	In the passing of time between the writing of the Letters to
Sinnett, and the printing of the book of Letters, so much had been put
public, that most of it didn't matter so much, and even then, so much of it
is only significant to people like you and me. Because of that, I think, it
is worthwhile for it to have been published. There is now SO MUCH
esoteric material in books through out the world, that it takes experience
in it to recognise the Gems in the chaff.

--------------------------------------------


DTB	Perfectly sure that there are gems in the chaff. But that does not
lift the onus of our observing the privacy concerning those documents that
others have violated the secrecy of.  

I said this is a moral universe. We are all being tested as to the manner
of our employment of the selection of that which we use as a basis for study
and discussion. It is our discretion that is under test by "nature."

------------------------------------------


D	Trevor Barker however, considered this, but did not give weight to
that request -- and in spite of such requests published them. So there is
a ?????

But Trevor, all by himself, could not do much. The decision to publish was a
group effort, not the work of a single individual.

-------------------------------------------------

DTB	What is the source for this statement. What I have from those who
knew and talked with Trevor Barker prior to that publishing is quite
different.

Can you let me have the source of your statement "that it was a group
decision?" did T B say so?

In my esteem one is arrogating to ones' self the position of equality with
HPB and the Masters' level of learning and responsibility. But is that
reasonable? Have we qualified ourselves?  

Do we present Theosophy, or allow our presentation to reflect our
speculations?

When you or I are able to write a S D, or even a "KEY TO THEOSOPHY," then
such a statement will be true. Can you consider for yourself: What is the
basis of your "DISAGREEMENT ?"

------------------------------------------------


D	Yes, in the 15 vol. set of HPB writings (BLAVATSKY -- COLLECTED
WRITINGS, published by the Adyar TPH, some of the material offered there is
direct from unpublished MSS of HPB's -- one might surmise that she
did not publish those as found there, because they deserved to be revised
and completed. In looking at those, and making use of the ideas they
contain, is like dealing with "stolen or smuggled goods." We have to be
cautious
and balance what is said there with our own acquired knowledge of both the
Head and the Heart doctrines -- as outlined in the VOICE OF THE SILENCE.
We have to use our "intuition." I agree.

I hope the above quoted exchange is of assistance in this matter,


Dallas

=========================================
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Anand G
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 1:59 AM
To: 
Subject: Re: The meaning of "perfected men"



" The powers of the Adept are indeed many and wonderful, but they all 
follow in
natural sequence from faculties which we ourselves possess. It is 
only that They
have these faculties in a very much greater degree. I think that the 
outstanding
characteristic of the Adept, as compared with ourselves, is that He 
looks upon
everything from an absolutely different point of view; for there is 
in Him
nothing whatever of the thought of self which is so prominent in the 
majority of
men. The Adept has eliminated the lower self, and is living not for 
self but for
all, and yet, in a way that only He can really understand, that all 
is truly
Himself also. He has reached that stage in which there is no flaw in 
His
character, nothing of a thought or feeling for a personal, separated 
self, and
His only motive is that of helping forward evolution, of working in 
harmony with
the Logos who directs it.

CUT