Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00369)

thanks again,


bill

robert_b_macd wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> I think you are identifying areas of inquiry that are for me most
> interesting.  First though, I would like to say that I am really not
> interested in lineages and feel that Crosby, Hargrove, and Tingley all
> preserved aspects of theosophy in the organizations that they
> continued on with.  My motive has always been a moral one having to do
> with the First Object and the ingratitude of later theosophists
> towards the founders of the TS, the founders having sacrificed their
> lives in order to bring to us the teachings.  My opinions, like anyone
> else's opinions on the guilt or innocence of HPB and WQJ really amount
> to nothing.  They are and always have been a distraction, and a means
> of dividing the Society.  It can truly be said at this point that if
> there existed enough evidence to confirm their guilt or even present a
> good case against them, that eveidence would have been brought forward
> by the many enemies of theosophy that have existed within the Society
> over the years.  At this point, because we are left simply with
> baseless accusations, it is pure ingratitude that keeps these
> allegations alive.  If someone wants to present a case AGAINST Judge
> or Blavatsky, then I have no problem with this and will gladly debate
> such an honest attempt.  As there is not anyone presenting such a case
> then we can surmise that everyone agrees that HPB and WQJ are innocent
> or it must be that their enemies are cowards.
>
> As for the Nirmanakaya speaking in HPB's voice, this is interesting. 
> Naturally, anything I say is speculation, but in stretching to
> understand this, perhaps we may learn something.  Remember HPB wrote:
> "The trouble with you is that you do not know the great change that
> came to pass in you a few years ago.  Others have occasionally their
> astrals changed and replaced by those of Adepts (as of Elementaries)
> and they influence the outer, and the higher man.  With you, it is the
> NIRMANAKAYA not the 'astral' that blended with your astral.  Hence the
> dual nature and fighting."  (Echoes, I, xxxv)
>
> What if HPB is describing to Judge a similar process to the one that
> she herself underwent?  This would be one reason why she might be
> familiar with such an esoteric process.  HPB wrote this letter in
> 1886.  "A few years ago" could refer to 1884 when Judge was in India.
>  This is the argument made by Ernest Pelletier in TJC, that Judge
> underwent some sort of initiation at that time.  There are 28 days
> where his whereabouts are unknown.
>
> How do we understand what HPB is trying to say here?  No doubt it is
> clear to Judge, but less so to me.  One explanation might be as follows.
>
> "Others have occasionally their astrals changed and replaced by those
> of Adepts (as of Elementaries) and they influence the outer, and the
> higher man."
>
> Is HPB saying here that sometimes an Adept replaces a chela's astral
> with his own?  In this position the more purified astral of the adept
> would be expressed outwardly, and the consciousness with fewer
> distractions would find it easier to influence his higher self?  This
> would be a beneficial influence.  The opposite would be where an
> Elementary managed to replace an individuals astral with its own -
> hence the parenthetical comment.
>
> "With you, it is the NIRMANAKAYA not the 'astral' that blended with
> your astral.  Hence the dual nature and fighting."
>
> Here Judge is being told that the NIRMANAKAYA actually blended with
> his astral, hence all the negative aspects of his own astral is there
> in conjunction with the nobler aspects of the NIRMANAKAYA.  This gave
> Judge a "dual nature" in a sense.  He was often fighting with himself,
> or at least felt that this was so.
>
> If HPB was the former case, the Adept blended with her Astral, maybe
> after her death, the psychological apparatus that was HPB continued
> for some time, animated by the Adept, and naturally she responded in
> ways familiar to those who knew her.
>
> This is speculation of course, but it points to the fact that there is
> no one way in which occult procedures are conducted.  Once you know
> the principles, how you accomplish something is up to the
> practitioners.  As a novice, I tend to get trapped by definitions
> sometimes and miss the point that this is a living doctrine.  It is
> not until I get questioned on these matters and actually begin to
> think about them that I begin to see the possibilities.  I hope this
> helps as it certainly helped me clarify things.
>
> Sincerely,
> Bruce
>
>
>
>