Theos-Talk Archives (February 2008 Message tt00401)

Dear Frank

As a supplementary point, perhaps you might read 
the full article by Mr Schuller to see more 
of the context in which he writes and from which 
I comment.

http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/story.html

Regards
Nigel


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer" <dzyan@...> 
wrote:
>
> Nigel:
> 
> 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:
> 
> Indeed, I need to improve my English.
> Your answer shows me the (my?) misunderstandings.
> 
> ------------------------------
> Nigel:
> 
> Please simply state what you believe to be your
> evidence.
> ------------------------------
> 
> Frank:
> 
> I never believed to have an evidence.
> So I kindly asked you, what would you accept as evidence?
> So perhaps I can give you this evidence.
> What is your evidence, say, that Masters really exist?
> 
> ------------------------------
> Nigel:
> 
> 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.
> 
> ------------------------------
> Frank:
> 
> I again do not understand what your problem is.
> What do you mean by "even Dr Purucker writes", as if it is 
something 
> strange, what he said.
> It's the most logic thing he said.
> 
> HPB came to do certain work.
> But the success, or the degree of success, depended on the growth 
of the 
> souls of her co-workers.
> So no conclusively predictive was possible, at least publicly, 
because for 
> every soul there are always two paths and HPB had no right to 
suppress the 
> free will.
> 
> ------------------------------ 
> Nigel:
> 
> 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.
> 
> ------------------------------ 
> Frank:
> 
> To me it's quite the other way round:
> esotericism is the only real world of which I know of.
> HPB never stated that a master would definitely appear before 1899, 
because 
> it depended of the karma of her co-workers.
> Were all her chelas fallen like Annie Besant, no Master would have 
appeared 
> before 1899.
> But not all her chelas were fallen, several stood the test, like 
Henry T. 
> Edge (for example).
> But that does not mean that she did not work towards this 
possibility and 
> was merely in a wait and see position.
> 
> In 1888 or 1889 she asked her closest co-worker William Judge, 
whether he 
> has found his new chela or not.
> Judge also confirms that he several times has discussed with (the 
then still 
> incarnated) HPB about the new hope, the new paraclete and that she 
knew that 
> this new chela would build in teh West a theosophical school as so 
fulfill 
> HPB's highest dreams, a task, which she was handicapped to fulfill.
> 
> But if the situation had taken place, that all her chelas went away 
or 
> became untrue, no paraclete would have appeared and no school had 
build.
> And "they" had to wait until 1975, because in every last quarter of 
a 
> century a messenger of the Masters appears in the West since Tsong-
kha-pa.
> I call it the outer messengers in analogy to outer rounds.
> 
> ------------------------------ 
> Nigel:
> 
> 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."
> 
> ------------------------------ 
> Frank:
> 
> True, but that obviously did not prevent the Masters to send one of 
theirs 
> to the West in the last quarter.
> And again, I think that Adyar has learned its lesson on cant about 
Masters.
> So the result is that most theosophists did not recognize around 
1975 the 
> new torchbearer of truth.
> 
> That many false messiahs come does not mean that not also a true 
messiah 
> comes, don't?
> 
> ------------------------------ 
> Nigel:
> 
> 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.
> 
> ------------------------------ 
> Frank:
> 
> Ongoing work... a good idea.
> Most leading theosophist in Middle Europe I know of believe that 
all 
> theosophical work was already done by HPB and we may rest now (they 
will 
> rest for themselves, they will not HPB's rest).
> 
> I never heard of any pukka theosophist giving predictive dates 
about 
> masters.
> What do you mean by appearance in human form?
> 
> Do they usually appear in animal 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?"
> >
>