Theos-Talk Archives (May 2009 Message tt00498)

Hi Govert,

I don't have alot of time at this sitting to write so I will just jump in to your comments which read:

--------------------------------------------
I still like to hear from you, Daniel, what the decisive set of experiences were that were instrumental for you in overcoming
the confusion and skepticism generated by all the contradictory claims which you were initially exposed to.
--------------------------------------------

Well, I don't know if there was a specific "decisive set of experiences" that were instrumental but I will "start" in this posting with where I left off last time.

I was at the point of not only being confused but also being somewhat skeptical as a result of all the multitude of contradictiory and conflicting claims and counterclaims.

Then I noticed that all or almost all of the later claimants were basing their claims on what Blavatksy had first claimed.  That is, that she was in contact with Master KH and M of the Occult Brotherhood.

And many of these claimants more or less said they were following in HPB's footsteps or that they were the newest messenger of the Theosophical Masters, however they might phrase it.

So I wanted to know more about the "fountain source", that is HPB, her life, her claims, her work, her writings and her teachings, and also about her Teachers.

If she was the one to start the ball rolling, so to speak, then it seemed important to go back to the beginning.....

So over many years I took it upon myself to find out more about HPB, her life, her claims, her work, her writings, her teachings.

Did her Masters really exist?  Or did she just make them up as Richard Hodgson's report asserted.  

What was the evidence from HPB's life that would help one to decide whether what she claimed was true and that she was really in contact with these Masters or whether she was just a charlatan or maybe some self-hallucinating psychic or victim of her own subconscious mind or a tool of Satan and his demons, etc.

I am by nature a very skeptical person but also I try to be open minded and I also try to challenge my own assumptions and thinking.

So I started collecting everything I could on Blavatsky.  Writing to this scholar or Theosophical writer, this Theosophical Society or that Theosophical group, to this library or special collection, etc. etc. etc.

While I was doing all of that, I was also independently trying to educate myself on world religions, mythologies, philosophies, modern day "cults" and minority spiritual movements, spiritualism, parapsychology, transpersonal pschology, mysticism, magic, ancient civilizations and a whole host of other subjects since HPB of course was dealing with all these subjects directly or indirectly in all of her writings.  How could I understand what she was writing about without having more background on the subjects she was dealing with, quoting from, etc. etc.

But for the purposes of this current discussion, I will stick to my exploration of Blavatsky.

So could HPB perform psychic phenomena?  There was alot of seemingly conflicting evidence.  What was what?  So I studied all of that.

What evidence was there that her Masters existed?  I ignored her own testimony and looked for the testimony of people who meet her and knew her and claimed they had encountered/met her Teachers.  And what did the skeptic say about these Masters?  etc. etc.

Plus at the same time, by studying all of this testimony about encounters with Masters, by also looking at what HPB wrote about her Masters, who they were, their nature, etc. etc., one could start to construct from all of this a better picture of who these Masters were suppose to be. Plus of course since we had at least 3 volumes of letters from the Masters KH and M and a few other adepts, then what would these letters reveal about the supposed adepts, about what a Master is or isn't, about the Occult Brotherhood supposedly in the background, etc. etc.

The same with all of HPB's writings.  What is this Theosophy that she is writing about?  From a careful reading and studying of all her writings, could I come to an understanding and comprehension of this thing called Theosophy.

So this is where I have devoted a great deal of my time for many, many years.

In summary, I went back to Blavatsky and tried to see what were her claims, her teachings, first of all simply to KNOW what they were! !!
 
But of course I also wanted to know if what she claimed and taught was true, valid etc. etc. or just the result of fraudulent activity, ravings of some sincere but deluded kook, etc.

And in my mind at least was the thought that with this foundation, then maybe one might be in a somewhat better position to assess and evaluate the claims made LATER by Judge, Besant, Leadbeater, Tingley, Purucker, Bailey, etc. etc.

It was obvious at least to me at some point that if HPB was just a fraud and her Masters really didn't exist, then obviously later claims were also fraudulent and illusionary.

But even if HPB's claims, etc. were valid and true, then what would or should one make of all these later claimants?

Enough for now.  My sitting is up but hopefully this will give you some idea of where I am coming from.....

I have just jotted all of this down so consider the above a rough draft.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Govert Schuller" <schuller@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Daniel,
> 
> I very much appreciate your sharing of your 'path' through Theosophy and its different variations. 
> 
> I do have to point out that we both meant something different with the verb 'to start.' I meant it as foundation or starting point of a discourse and you interpreted it as beginning or starting point in a chronological sense. But, that's not necessarily a problem as both are valid: one is systematic the other historical and both are inter-twined. 
> 
> So, when I meant that your starting point was HPB, I meant that that is your present foundation of your worldview from which you evaluate, reason, etc., regardless of how you arrived there chronologically speaking. 
> 
> My foundation in specifically the Krishnamurti issue is the conviction that it was a genuine project as there were so many transcendental and sacred events that went with Krishnamurti that, though I can conceive it as being spurious, that possibility just crumbles when compared with the what I think are the facts and my own personal experiences. 
> 
> But, if I had to go with your meaning of starting point, I'd have to go back to reading The Hobbit at age 11, or even earlier to the comic strip Asterix the Gaul (remember, Martin?) in which an important character was Getafix the Druid, who introduced me to the idea of magic potions and occult powers. And maybe, and I found this out just a couple of weeks ago, I might have picked up old Druid ideas as I roamed the hills around, according to HPB, the last of the mystery schools in Europe at Bibracte, France, where closeby my aunt bought a farmhouse 40 years ago. (I'll post that story later). 
> 
> The funny thing, to stay in historical mode, is that I found Theosophy and Krishnamurti independently of each other. It's not that I found K through Theosophy or other way around. I was exposed to Theosophy through one of my best friends at high school whose whole family was into Theosophy and were members of the TS Pasadena. Because of them I read Long, Judge and HPB's 'Key.' Meanwhile I found K through Alan Watts' "Wisdom of Insecurity", which author I found through Roszak's "Making of a Counter Culture." I had no idea that K was connected to the TS! And it was in K that I found some ideas helpful in dealing with the existential angst that comes with adolescence. When I shared my 'find' with my theosophical friend and his parents they told me they knew him all along and shared some critical articles about K and AB. This did not deter me at all from further delving into K and off I went to Saanen in 1980 jumping really into the deep.  
> 
> Ok, that's part of my story. I still like to hear from you, Daniel, what the decisive set of experiences were that were instrumental for you in overcoming the confusion and skepticism generated by all the contradictory claims which you were initially exposed to. 
> 
> In the next post I'll get into your questions.
> 
> Best 
> 
> Govert
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: danielhcaldwell 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:43 PM
>   Subject: Theos-World Re: Possible positions regarding HPB and the WT project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Govert,
> 
>   Thanks for your posting below.
> 
>   As usual I enjoy reading your thoughtful posts, even if I don't always respond to what you say.
> 
>   Let me try this time to make a few comments to see if we can further the discussion along.
> 
>   You write:
> 
>   ---------------------------------------------------
>   As I made clear before, you start with 1) and I start with 2) and that has to do with the particular history of our spiritual quest and the decisive formative spiritual events while on our way.
>   ----------------------------------------------------
> 
>   But Govert, actually if anything I started with some variation of 2). In my particular case, I first read about Theosophy through reading books by Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater. So I was certainly not adverse at that stage of my personal history to 2). Not at all.
> 
>   It was only later that I came across THE MAHATMA LETTERS and THE SECRET DOCTRINE. 
> 
>   And then upon reading the latter 2 works, I started being quite puzzled by what seemed like all sorts of differences between Besant/Leadbeater and The Mahatma Letters/Secret Doctrine. I remember I was quite confused by all of that. At that point in time I didn't have a clue as to what was what or as to what was going on. I had not heard at that stage that there was a "Theosophy" that was supposedly different from "Neo-Theosophy."
> 
>   Without going into alot of other interesting detail, etc, as time went on I found out that there were other people claiming also to be in contact with the Theosophist Masters other than HPB, CWL and AB and that most of these claims were made after HPB's death.
> 
>   Bailey, Prophet, Purucker, Judge were some of these names I first ran across. I learned about more from time to time!!!!
> 
>   And after reading some of the material and books by and about these latter named individuals, I was even more confused! Again there seemed to be a hodgepodge of claims and teachings. What should I make of it all?
> 
>   If anything it make me somewhat skeptical of many of the claims if not all the claims INCLUDING the original claim by HPB.
> 
>   So in summary, I definitely did NOT start out with 1). 
> 
>   Again Nigel Carey here on Theos-Talk if I mistake not did not start with 1). But if he cares to describe his journey, etc., I'm sure he will do so if he has the time.
> 
>   Moving on.
> 
>   So I will ask you a question or two at this point for this has relevance to the above and to many of the issues raised in your email that I am currently responding to. 
> 
>   After HPB's death there have been literally dozens of people claiming to be in contact with one or another of HPB's Masters. I have given a partial list before.
> 
>   Govert, do you accept ALL of their claims as true?
> 
>   Or do you have reservations about some of the claims and even consider some of them as either "perpetrating a fraud, or subject to self-deception", etc.?
> 
>   If you answer this question --- and I don't expect a detailed essay either---, then I want to pursue that avenue more with you in a future posting.
> 
>   Now one more question and I will close this current posting for now. 
> 
>   Although I want to cover some other areas, I'm running out of time at this sitting so will end this posting with that question.
> 
>   Do you believe that "Mary" [Maude Travers] was actually in communication with Master Koot Hoomi? This is the "psychic" Sinnett used for a number of years as an "intermediary" with the Master. Or so he believed.....
> 
>   If you can answer this question, I want to follow up with you with several comments and issues again relevant to the subject matter of your posting that I am currently responding to.
> 
>   Daniel
>   http://hpb.cc
> 
>   --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Govert Schuller" <schuller@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Dear Daniel,
>   > 
>   > Thanks again for the links. 
>   > 
>   > There are a few ways to reconcile HPB and the WT project:
>   > 
>   > 1) If you start with HPB as the true standard, than you can deduce from her writings that AB, CWL and K were all mistaken and either perpetrating a fraud, or subject to self-deception, or deception by meta-emperical entities like dugpas, or possibly even by the Masters themselves (vide Nigel's hypothesis).
>   > 
>   > 2) If you start with the idea that most transcendental events connected to the WT project were genuine, than you can conclude that not all of HPB's ideas are necesarrily helpful to understand what really happened. Some do, some don't. And she might be mistaken. You just have to weigh her statements about Maitreya with the statements made by CWL, K, Hodson, Scott and Anrias, all of whom were witnessing one way or the other of Maitreya's involvement in the WT project.
>   > 
>   > 3) HPB's ideas are right and the WT project was genuine at the same time. There was just some unfortunate mix-up in names and concepts. Therefore no reason to become an anti-Krishnamurti, fundamentalist Blavatskyite nor an anti-Theosophical fundamentalist Krishnamurtiite. 
>   > 
>   > As I made clear before, you start with 1) and I start with 2) and that has to do with the particular history of our spiritual quest and the decisive formative spiritual events while on our way. 
>   > 
>   > So my repost to you would be:
>   > 
>   > Regardless of what HPB wrote and taught, it looks to me that something very profound, mysterious and transformational happened with the WT project and some august high spiritual intelligences were involved and their names might well have been Koot Hoomi, Maitreya, Buddha and Sanat Kumara. 
>   > 
>   > In the end I think we'll just have to agree to disagree and hopefully agreeably so. 
>   > 
>   > Govert
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > ----- Original Message ----- 
>   > From: danielhcaldwell 
>   > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:03 AM
>   > Subject: Theos-World What did HPB teach about Maitreya & the Torch-Bearer??
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > Regardless of what various Theosophical writers after HPB have written
>   > about the coming Maitreya and the Torch-Bearer of Truth of the 20th century, what did H.P. Blavatsky originally write and teach about each of these subjects?
>   > 
>   > I give again links to postings that collate the relevant HPB material. These pages give what HPB taught regardless of what other individuals later WANTED to make of the teachings.
>   > 
>   > H.P. Blavatsky on the true Maitreya
>   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/50664
>   > 
>   > Was Alice Bailey "the New Torch-Bearer of Truth"?
>   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/50828
>   > 
>   > Also relevant to these 2 topics is what HPB said elsewhere about
>   > the Christ and the Messiah craze:
>   > 
>   > ". . . true Theosophists will never accept ...a Christ made Flesh... 
>   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/50666
>   > 
>   > H.P. Blavatsky on Christ -- the true esoteric SAVIOR 
>   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/50662
>   > 
>   > 'Lo here! and lo there!': The Messiah Craze 
>   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/50663
>   > 
>   > And finally the following relevant postings should be kept in mind as one goes over the above material:
>   > 
>   > Dr. Santucci on Besant & Leadbeater's teachings..... 
>   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/50748
>   > 
>   > Was Besant /Leadbeater disseminating "a misleading Mayavic ideation? 
>   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/50752
>   > 
>   > Annie Besant on Her Messiah: Was this Part of the Messiah Craze?
>   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/50543
>   > 
>   > Annie Besant Under DELUDING Influences
>   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/49392
>   > 
>   > Did Besant & Leadbeater follow the advice in the 1900 KH Letter?
>   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/41250
>   > 
>   > I'm planning to put all of this material on our website so it can be easily found by students and researchers.
>   > 
>   > Daniel
>   > http://hpb.cc
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>