Theos-Talk Archives (August 2007 Message tt00041)

> Now it appears to me that your basic argument is that after H.P.B.
> died (or after Judge died), there HAD to be a successor.

Daniel,
that is not what I mean. It HAD not have been. All depends on the 
spirutual quality of the pupils. When the pupil is ready, the teacher 
wil be there.
Would the theosophists of TODAY be READY, the great ones could 
communicate directly within the Theosophical Movement.

HPB made this point very clear, when she wrote to her Esotericists 
than important years to the close of the cycle in 1897 will come and 
that it depends on everyone whether her mission would end in a 
failure or not.

She knew that her successors where latent there and were waiting for 
the call of the chelas. 

But it was not for sure whether the link would be work after her 
departure or not, but she must have much hope, at least after her 
Master's birds-eye vision of the theosophical school in the West, 
which she hoped to build during her last incarnation. Another hint is 
her last photo, where she points to her inner and outer successors.

> Otherwise you contend "the esoteric world stopped" or "the occult
> machines have stopped and no further advancement was possible and no
> new teachings were given out."
> 
> Well, it is true that after HPB and WQJ died, there were a number of
> individuals claiming to be successors. But who was the REAL
> successor? That is the question to be answered. And that's assuming
> there HAD to be a successor publicly known or in the outer world.

Yes, it is true, that when one teacher is gone and the karma of the 
chelas allow that a new teacher comes, that not all old chelas agree 
with the new teacher.

There must have been a real successor as there were several untrue 
successors. The fact that HPB had one or more successors in the 
Tibetan transmission line of the Dzyan schools does not include that 
the successor/s are publicly known or even known to all theosophists.

Obviously, the history after 1891 with the split and the Besant and 
Leadbeater drama and that Besant tried to kick out two founders of 
the parent body (first against Olcott, then against Judge) shows that 
the policy about teachers and the guruparampara was equivalent to the 
spiritual fitness of the theosophists.

We see the same polic with the London E.S., which had to be closed 
for a time and at another time the rules had to be changed.

If the theosophical history after 1891 would have been better (more 
spiritual in direction to the Masters), the policy about teacher 
would have been automatically also been better, as Masters are the 
servants of karma, not their Lords.

> One might also ask: Who was the immediate predecessor to HPB?

Ask HPB on her last photo and she will give you the answer for 
herself.
 
> But trying not to stray from the central issue being discussed here,
> IF what you say is true, that there HAD to be a successor to HPB and
> there HAD to be a successor to Judge, then following 
this "reasoning"
> would it not be equally true that there HAD to be a successor to G.
> de Purucker?

I did not mean that there HAD to be one, I say there WAS one (or 
more).

De Purucker was not much convinced that he had a successor, otherwise 
he would have not prayed that if the link will be broken the 
theosophists should do all to reestablish this link.
My own humble study shows me that the theosophists do not follow that 
advise until TODAY.

> Who was or is that successor? And since it has been 65 years since
> G. de Purucker died, one might assume that GdeP's successor has also
> died, and that there must now be a successor to GdeP's successor!

That a teacher has a successor is no natural law. All depends on the 
readiness of the pupils.
There are always possibilities. There was a poissibility that after 
GdeP's departure a new Leader would come in, otherwise GdeP would 
have not set aside a chela and train him how to recognize the new 
teacher. This chela, who was instructed, how and when a new teacher 
and with which signs can be recognized was W. Emmett Small.
You know, that Emmett never accepted the self-styled Pasadena people 
Long and Conger as successors.

> So Frank, tell me who was GdeP's successor? Because according to
> your thinking, he HAD to have a successor or else "the occult
> machines have stopped and no further advancement was possible and no
> new teachings were given out."

GdeP's successor did not appear. That doe snot mean, that no one was 
there. The occult machines never stop, even when the chelas ar 
stupid. The Masters only have extra work to do and must use new 
channels instead of the unfit ones.
 
> So who is that successor???? Was it Arthur L. Conger? And if not
> Conger, then who? Because by your way of thinking, there HAD to be
> such a successor.

As said, it is not my way of thinking. There was a chance, a 
possibility, but the theosophists failed.
But it might be said that from a human point of view a succession of 
four teachers is a great success and I think that the school of Plato 
was also not able to hold the level longer.

> I raise this point because if you can't say who is GdeP's successor
> than this raises the possibility that your premise may be false or
> else the supposed "Guruparampara" works differently than you think.

My premise is not wrong, only your interpretation of my words, which 
may be expressed in lausy English, what I regret.

> Again I ask: Who was HPB's immediate predecessor??

Do you refer to the century messenger who appears since Tsong-kha-pa 
in every last quarter of a century?
Or do you refer to the inner gurparampara?
Or to another cycle?
In one way she obviously followed Jesus Christ, whoever is was.
 
> I hope you get my basic point and if I have failed to explain fully
> enough I will try later to expand on this issue.

That is very kind. Pleas expand if you like. I would be glad to 
discuss this theme further with you.
Hope, my expression is clear enough.
You know that I can give only my only results of my own study and I 
do not declare that I have found the truth.
But that there was a guruparampara beginning with HPB is very clear 
and logical to me. Therefore it would be wrong to me to say of HPB 
that she was unique. She was unique as each teacher is unique.
Frank