Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00002)

On ML#62 K.H. talks to Sinnett:

"""True you have offered several times to give up meat and drink, 
and I have refused. Since you cannot become a regular chela why should 
you? I thought you had understood all this long ago; that you had resigned 
yourself, satisfied to wait patiently for future developments and for my 
personal freedom."""

And earlier:

"""My poor, blind friend -- you are entirely unfit for practical occultism! 
Its laws are immutable; and no one can go back on an order once given... If 
my voice, the voice of one who was ever friendly to you in the human 
principle of his being -- fails to reach you as it has often before, then 
our separation in the present and for all times to come -- becomes 
unavoidable. It pains me for you, whose heart I read so well -- every 
protest and doubt of your purely intellectual nature, of your cold Western 
reason -- notwithstanding"""

So it seems, Sinnett was never meant to be a chela, so he didnt stand for 
chelaship either. And discontinuation of comminucation by the letters was 
not about "eating habits" but Sinnets beliefs??? What did he so wrong?

Then on ML#48:

"""she is delivering herself of actual, incontrovertible facts. And why? 
Because both Maitland and herself as well as their circle -- are strict 
vegetarians, while S.M. is a flesh-eater and a wine and liquor drinker. 
Never will the Spiritualists find reliable, trustworthy mediums and Seers 
(not even to a degree) so long as the latter and their "circle" will 
saturate themselves with animal blood, and the millions of infusoria of 
the fermented fluids. Since my return I found it impossible for me to 
breathe -- even in the atmosphere of the Headquarters! M. had to 
interfere, and to force the whole household to give up meat; and they 
had, all of them, to be purified and thoroughly cleansed with various 
disinfecting drugs before I could even help myself to my letters. And 
I am not, as you may imagine, half as sensitive to the loathsome 
emanations as a tolerably respectable disembodied shell would be, 
-- leaving out of question a real PRESENCE, though but a "projecting" 
one. In a year or so, perchance earlier, I may find myself hardened 
again. At present I find it impossible -- do what I may."""

I've found Them being quite clear on that subject, IF you are called 
for chelaship and even further for a chela. But then, i still can 
understand eating meat on rare occasions, as Blavatsky an Olcott may 
have on their later life. 

Our body is changing all the time, most of the cells are changed in 
some months and years. Damodar says it takes seven years to make a new 
body and chelaship is meant for that purpose only. But physical constitution 
is not changed by eating and outer habits only, but more importantly what 
we think and feel. It is interesting to find, that even if our cells are 
changed, we still think we are same personality. 

When i searched for scientific explanation and confirmation, i came to this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/17/the_odd_body_cell_age/

As someone repeated words of Jesus, its not about what we eat, but what we
"talk", think and feel so to speak. And thats why im interested of 
qualifications of chelaship. I think that questions comes inevitably, if we
dont want to be only speculative scientists on occult field. Not to say, it 
is unworth to speculate things like these. Thought precedes action, or should 
at least.

So the transmutation of the body is needed. But why should one aim to that?
Do we need Masters and their school to help us, aren't we a part of the Unity 
including all the knowledge to reach them by ourselves?

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer" <dzyan@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Why should a Master not speak with people like Sinnett if they wish?
> They never planned to make a chela out of him, did they?
> Frank
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: MKR
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 7:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: 7-years test for discipleship
> 
> 
> I also recall a statement in ML that the physical impediments such as meat,
> alcohol etc are more easy to deal with than beliefs and superstitions. There
> is also statement that AP Sinnett had no beliefs so it was easy to
> communicate with him theosophicals ideas. I think, it is wrong to just zero
> in on one aspect ignoring all others. I am yet to see an individual who got
> enlightened by giving up, meat, alcohol, sex, money, etc. etc. while giving
> them up may simplify lives.
> 
> mkr