Theos-Talk Archives (February 2008 Message tt00308)

Nigel:
If this is what Dr Purucker or others said years after the death of
Madame Blavatsky then I respectfully disagree with their
interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------

Frank:
Why not?
No one is forced in Theosophy to believe in anything if it's in 
nonconformance with the own conscience, see Purucker's Hilversum radio 
speech:
http://theosophy.com/purucker/archives/show.php?NAME=19370923-gdp&PATH=txt&DESC=0:17:34&BACK=radio&BDESC=RADIO%20TALK

(BTW, note, that in this transscript there is the word [very] missing at:
"deductions to the [very] frontiers")

What do you mean by "said years after the death"?
Does it mean that what Purucker, Harris or Small wrote about that, was 
outmoded?
And if so, is your speculation about messengers outmoded, too?
-----------------------------------------------------
Nigel:
Mr Schuller is referring to Madame Blavatsky and her
teachers "mission" through the formation of the
Theosophical Society by virtue of the substantiating
quote he uses from the Key to Theosophy, and the word
"was" in the sentence quoted.

So reiterating, I don't accept the premise that the
deliberate "mission" of Madame Blavatsky and her
teachers' Theosophical Society was to ".prepare the
world for the coming of a great spiritual teacher."
-----------------------------------------------------
Frank:
I don't get your point.
What makes you so sure to know what HPB has planed in 1875?
At least I find no illogical point in Mr Schuller's (is this a version of 
German "Schueler", which means "pupil", and is phonetically identical with 
the Sanskrit "chela"?) statement.
At least it is not impossible, is it?
Probably Schueler has an intuitive Socratic insight?
-----------------------------------------------------
Nigel:
My concern is one of emphasis.
Where Madame Blavatsky referred to the possibility of
a "new torch-bearer of Truth" it was in the following
terms:
"If the present attempt, in the form of our Society,
succeeds better than its predecessors have done."
Please note the word "if."
And:
"If the Theosophical Society survives and lives true
to its mission, to its original impulses through the
next hundred years."
Note again the word "if."
In other words, if the Society (members) abides by
its objects (those of 1889) and lives up to its
"mission" of alleviating suffering, and popularizing
".a knowledge of theosophy" (their version of theosophy)
then possibly, a new teacher may arrive.
As the next passage confirms:
"In Century the Twentieth some disciple more informed,
and far better fitted, may be sent by the Masters
of Wisdom." S.D Vol 1 "Introduction"
Please note the word "may."
So whichever way we perceive it, there were/are many
conditions attached to the arrival of a new teacher.
-----------------------------------------------------
Frank:

Wrong, biased interpretation of your mind, your slayer.
As Morten you intermix two different issues.
The teachers in serial order is not the teacher of "the next impulse".
This is quite clear, don't?

So, when you connect the term "arrival" to the far better fitted teacher 
(which is not the avataric one of the next impulse), you are wrong, because 
when HPB wrote about him in 1888, he was already there.
HPB used the term "send", which is a flexible term and a blind, too. She 
says here that the karmic ring or connection between her and her successor 
is done and it depends of the karma of the theosophists and TS, whether the 
new teacher is "send" or made known.

Study the circumstances of Judge who tried his best to prevent the split of 
the TS under the black mailing and intrigues of Annie Besant against Olcott, 
and, when Judge helped Olcott against Besant to revokes down step as PTS, 
her turn against Judge, too. Under that cirmcumstances Master's did not 
allow that his occult status made be public.
Result is that even theosophists today know next to nothing about that and 
even a theosophical group, which drums in an anti-Judge style fanatical for 
Judge, does not know his real status, although their founder may have knwon 
it.

Or study the circumstances when Katherine Tingley became O.H. and later the 
3rd Leader of the Theosophical Movement throughout the World. In the 
beginning she was called X, purple, Parclete and what not. Neither her name 
nor her occult ranking was known, except to her pupils.

-----------------------------------------------------
Nigel:

>From my perspective then Madame Blavatsky and her
teachers' "mission" through their Theosophical
Society was not specific preparation for the arrival
of a new teacher 100 years hence, despite the cyclic
potential for this to occur.

They and their Society were working with the conditions
of the day and they knew that karma would decide
whether or not there would be another attempt a century
later.

It was and is for each of us as Theosophical students,
and humanity as a whole, to earn whatever arises pursuant
to the law of karma, not to look forward to a future
teacher or saviour as Mr Schuller's and others' emphasis
may construe in the minds of many.

This perception of what Madame Blavatsky wrote can
lead to many unhelpful attitudes and practices
including the potential for a messianic craze such
as happened in the Adyar Theosophical Society.

I suspect the same danger lurks to this day.

-----------------------------------------------------
Frank:

Mmmh. In reading Schuller's article I cannot see your implications.
To me he just specifies in Fn. 2 at which time the world teacher will 
arrive.
That he intermixes the occult status and titles of the persons mentioned is 
also clear.
That people have wrong pictures in mind is not the fault of HPB.
Therefore she was careful with her statements, so much, that she is not 
understood, except perhaps by those, who it may concern.

Dangers are always there.
I think Adyar has learned its lesson and I don't see a present danger for a 
new messianic craze.
Besant and Leadbeater have intermixed the different statements of HPB about 
different messengers (I calll them inner and outer messengers in analogy to 
inner and outer rounds of the globes).
Even letters of K.H., Tingley and Fussell could not stop their mania.

I think Adyar is on a healthy way on the 1975 question. But they make other 
errors. They are tending to the other extreme and get too passive. They 
still suffer from the priest attitude of Leadbeater to bring the members to 
mental laziness instead to make them think (manas and buddhi).

And I think that the top of Adyar since John Cordes sees now clear about the 
period with Leadbeater and Tingley and Purucker. They have learned this 
lesson, too, but they have not yet learned to let deeds follow. Radha 
Burnier's errs in my opinion when she says that unlike the SPR with its 
revoke of the falsification charge Adyar need not revoke the same charges 
against Judge. To me it's not only a karmic question, but also one of 
credibility and honesty. From the healing of past errors (which began with 
publication of Blavatsky Collected Writings, to which they had to be forced) 
they are getting now too shy to fight for truth inside and outside of the 
Theosophical Movement.

Other lineages have to learn other lessons. Meditation over HPB's last photo 
and the identification of this her last will and last message should pull 
down any still existing barriers between theosophical groups. Seems the link 
is still to be restored. But a united body is not in sight, th elast attempt 
to re-unite the organizations in the 1980'ies failed.