Theos-Talk Archives (February 2008 Message tt00398)

Dear Frank

You write, "Dear Nigel,me thought, you were quiet 
sure that HPB had no plans in 1875 for future work 
of successive messengers."

Perhaps it's our usage of English, which is making 
our concepts difficult to understand each other's 
position, because what you have written above is 
not what I have said.


Frank, I asked you to supply credible evidence to 
support your contention that, "when HPB wrote about 
him in 1888, he was already there."

You answered, "Possibly. That depends on some 
conditions. I need to now, what you would accept as 
evidence.
Also I need to know whether you accept the occult 
office of a messenger to the Masters.
We are talking here about esoteric matters and 
thinks are difficult."

Please simply state what you believe to be your 
evidence.


Frank, you write, "It's self-evident. HPB's discussion 
of the work of a messenger of 1897 and the work of the 
1975 messenger are logically two different things.
I don't know what is so difficult to understand."

With respect, this is mixing what was said and 
questioned.

My perspective remains, until proven otherwise, 
that whilst Madame Blavatsky wrote about the 
potential for coming teachers, she always couched 
it in terms of "if" such as, "And if her place is 
even filled up, perchance by another worthier and 
more learned than herself, still there remain but 
a few years to the last hour of the term -- namely, 
till December the 31st, 1899."
"First Preliminary Memorandum" issued Madame 
Blavatsky in 1888 to the members of the E.S.

Here she clearly wasn't speaking in terms of a 
fait accompli despite what other commentators might 
assume and write with such authority. 
In previous posts I have provided other examples of 
quotes from Madame Blavatsky supporting this contention.

Even Dr Purucker writes, "As she herself points out 
in substance: someone will follow me in all likelihood."

Even from him, note his qualifiers, "in substance" 
thereby not referring to a direct quote. And, "in 
all likelihood". Once again, not conclusively 
predictive.

We can hide behind the veil of esotericism as
our presumed authority, but this runs the real 
and actual risk of people assuming that HPB 
stated that a master would definitely appear 
before 1899 and again in 1975. 

This thereby creates the potential for messianic 
mindset and preparation such as occurred from some 
of the "later messengers" including Bishop Leadbeater 
and Dr Besant of the Theosophical Society, Adyar.

Messianic mindset and preparation, or preparation of 
any kind, produces blind followers and devotees, and 
creates the potential for authority figures who claim 
to "know."


>From my perspective, we need be particularly careful to clearly 
distinguish between the ongoing work and manifestations of the 
masters of the wisdom, which they themselves verify, and setting any 
actual predictive dates of their putative physical appearance in 
human form. 
Also from my perspective, we need be particularly careful not to put 
words into the mouth of Madame Blavatsky, which she didn't actually 
write.
She did not write that there would be appearances, only that there 
may be, either before, or not before a particular date, and even then 
subject to particular criteria. 

Regards
Nigel



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer" <dzyan@...> 
wrote:
>
> Nigel wrote:
> --------------------------------
> 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.
> --------------------------------
> Frank:
> Dear Nigel,
> me thought, you were quiet sure that HPB had no plans in 1875 for 
future 
> work of successive messengers.
> --------------------------------
> Nigel wrote:
> You write, "when HPB wrote about him in 1888, he was
> already there."
> 
> Can you please supply credible evidence to support
> this contention?
> 
> --------------------------------
> Frank:
> Possibly. That depends on some conditions.
> I need to now, what you would accept as evidence.
> Also I need to know whether you accept the occult office of a 
messenger to 
> the Masters.
> We are talking here about esoteric matters and thinks are difficult.
> --------------------------------
> Nigel wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
> --------------------------------
> Frank:
> Perhaps Purucker's hints about the insignia majestatis will be of 
help:
> http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/teachers/te-gdp7.htm
> 
> --------------------------------
> Nigel wrote:
> 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:
> It's self-evident. HPB's discussion of the work of a messenger of 
1897 and 
> the work of the 1975 messenger are logically two different things.
> I don't know what is so difficult to understand.
> --------------------------------
> Nigel wrote:
> 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.
> 
> --------------------------------
> Frank:
> Really!!??
> Perhaps I need to brush up my English.
> I just share with all open-minded students the results of my study.
> These results are personal opinion.
> You or Morten or others have other opinions.
> If I think, they are wrong, I speak out.
> You have given me also no hard evidence that HPB did not work for 
her 
> succeccors and the 1975 messenger.
> And I wonder which evidence I could give you, while the living and 
the work 
> of our great ones speaks for themselves.
> Should I send you a certificate, singed by a President of a TS, in 
which is 
> stated: "Yes, Frank is right, HPB did prepatory work for the 1975 
messenger.
> And yes, Frank is also right, that the 1897 messenger is not 
identical with 
> the 1975 messenger?"
>