Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00234)

Daniel, I am glad that you read my postings.
As I am occupied with worldly and family duties I have not time enough which
I wished I should have to follow these list at present.
But if I get a serious response as yours it stimulates me to write, at least
in a hurry.
I nevertheless hope my hurry humble texts can be understood.

BTW, to the question whether what I claim GdeP taught about leading posts in
the TS is correspond with what HPB taught or not, is not so easy as it
seems.
Many sincerily Theosophists, including yourself it seems from your archives
homepage http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/latermessengers.htm, interpret
HPB's words about the time after December 31, 1899 and that no Master will
come or send a new messenger, in that way, that she left no successor. But
that is only dead-letter reading.

So, we have the ironically (if not tragically) situation that the
dead-letter interpreters of HPB, who misunderstood her (until today?), claim
they follow HPB, although HPB always fighted against dead
letter-interpretations.
De Purucker revealed the esoteric meaning of HPB's words and me think there
is no logic which can explain his arguments away:
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/teachers/te-gdp7.htm

Another example would be the 5th sub-race poppycock, also based on
dead-letter interpretations of the SD, whereas actually we are but in the
middle of the 4th sub-race.

I make this examples to show that Theosophists do not even agree on such
topics where texts on both sides are published and logic alone would help to
find the right answer.

I have even less hope that Theosophits will agree on topics, were the higher
teachings, as regarding homosexuality or women in leading posts in the
present cycle, so far as I know, are not published, except at Purucker's
time to his members. But that leds me not to the conclusion that GdeP is not
congruent with HPB, although he seems at least to me her highest
interpreter.
He said that all what he teaches, including the "new" teachings after 1929,
are consistent with HPB and can in veiled form even found in her published
writings.

I doubt that anyone would believe that HPB taught that we are in the 4th
sub-race or that messengers will work in the West after 1899 without
Purucker's striking insight and explanation.
I ahve made this experience hundreds of times: That I understood HPB much
better after studying Purucker's commentaries to HPB or the Mahatma Letters.
Then I saw that HPB must have known the same as Purucker, but must have had
reason to use blinds and veil the things, whereas Purucker was allowed to
lift the veil a little further.

It is no wonder when one assumes - as they taught - that they came from the
same school.

And to prevent the danger that whole theosophical generations learn about a
false occult hierarchy, K.H. warned in the known 1900 letter to Annie
Besant:
"The cant about the "Masters" must be silently but firmly put down."
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/lastkh.htm

That is the reason to me, why a pukka Theosophist is not interested in
bringing the Masters to the front, because the masses will misuse it. The
Masters are not the level we should deal with:
http://koothoomi.net/
http://morya.net/
We should deal rather with those individuals who where trained by these
helpers of Mankind to teach in turn men. That is the level which brings much
more fruit than any cant about Masters and the Christian-styled Olcott-like
worship and the wrong ideas connected with these super-humans.

It seems, even over 100 years after HPB, the most Theosophists do not know
anything about the transmitters, envoys, messengers. More less know WHO they
were. Many groups deny all messengers except HPB. Some worship wrong
messengers.

The one extreme pole says: No messengers there after HPB, the other extreme
pole says: Our impostors were the messengers. Point Loma says: There were
messengers after HPB (three big ones, several other ones), and they did not
come after 1899, because they were already on their posts, but they were not
these imposters, wrongly worshipped by another group. That's ONE reason why
I regard the Blavatsky-Point Loma-Tradition as the Middle Way of Theosophy.

So much for "corresponding" with HPB.
Frank




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:01 PM
Subject: Theos-World Frank, thank you for your two postings


Frank,

Thank you for your two postings at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/28054

and

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/28055

Other readers and I have no doubt much to read and
think about.

I will also try to go back to your other postings
on this subject at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/27948

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/28001

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/28025

and read all of it together as one essay.

Once again, thanks.

Daniel









Yahoo! Groups Links