Theos-Talk Archives (February 2008 Message tt00292)

I understand, that I was to be given such an answer to my questions.
I will rest in comfort, that my views are most likely true.

You could consider the following questions and then consider why I answered like I did:
If one is to give others irrefutable proof of Gupta Vidya, who would they be?
How many persons are we at least talking about? And what kind of proof would be required so we could call it irrefutable?




M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Frank Reitemeyer 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 9:26 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World - Fools rush in


  1.
  Frank wrote:
  "So, from the logic point of view, HPB was refering to her occult successor
  in the Tibeto-Dzyan-transmission line."

  That is not logic. That was not what H. P. Blavatsky said.
  H. P. Blavatsky said: "In Century the Twentieth some disciple more informed, 
  and far better fitted, may be sent by the Masters of Wisdom to give final 
  and irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya"

  That is "irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya".
  This proof would be given by a disciple more informed and far better fitted, 
  than who? Logically a person more informed and better fitted Than H. P. 
  Blavatsky herself. And that is why such a person much likely would be known 
  to the public, and not a person whom only a very few would learn about!
  This is a more likely view than the one you prefer to emphasise.
  What "irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya" are 
  better than to show people it all through action and to be an example to 
  tohers?

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

  Morten,
  yes, the disciple would be more informed and better fitted than Blavatsky, 
  therefore she could have been meant the 1975 messenger, but rather a chela 
  in the gurparampara.
  As you can see, you have missed be point, for I was refering to that logic 
  before, the logic which you reject and at the same time you admit it.

  But HPB never said, that and how much this disciple which would be send to 
  the West, would be known to the public. That is but your - unbased - 
  interpretation, not HPB's meaning.

  She also says nothing about the quantity of people who could learn from it. 
  That is your - unbased - interpretation, too.

  And I am sorry to say, that HPB does not say anything about the time frame 
  she had in mind. It can be relatively few people from the time of getting 
  started, but in the course of time - and Masters think in centuries, a 
  mantra GdeP always used - after decades or centuries the quantity could grow 
  much from such a nucleus. So, it's but your interpretation, too.

  HPB writes only that this proofs will be given, she gives no time line for 
  publication. She hints rather to a time capsule.

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

  2.
  Frank wrote:
  "Sai Baba may be a fine teacher for some people, but he is certainly not
  trained in the Dzyan school and therefore no messenger of the Dzyan and
  Masters and Wisdom and Peace."

  You claim a lot here. Do you know who Sathya Sai Baba is?
  What are you basing your views in the above on?
  Why should your view be given any validity at all?
  -------------------------------

  I claim nothing. I just share my opinion with you.
  My view has only the validity someone gives.
  You are free to believe what you want.
  I do the same.

  Best
  Frank



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]