Theos-Talk Archives (February 2008 Message tt00317)

Dear Frank

Thank you again for your response.

You write, "I don't get your point.
What makes you so sure to know what HPB has planed 
in 1875?"

Actually I have not been shown conclusive evidence 
that she planned anything at all in terms of 
preparing,  "?the world for the coming of a great 
spiritual teacher expected in the last quarter of 
the 20th century in 1975" for reasons already stated.

She carried out the work intended for her and suggested 
the above may occur subject to criteria already stated. 

You write, "when HPB wrote about him in 1888, he was 
already there."

Can you please supply credible evidence to support 
this contention?

You write, "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."

Can you also please supply credible evidence to support 
these contentions?

You write, "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."

Once again can you kindly provide credible evidence 
for this?

Frank with respect, you write with quite adamant 
authority. You often claim that some of us have 
wrong perspectives whilst providing little hard 
evidence of a credible nature to me to support 
your contentions. I hope you might be able to do 
so on this occasion.

Thank you again.

Regards
Nigel




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer" <dzyan@...> 
wrote:
>
> 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.
>