Theos-Talk Archives (January 2012 Message tt00085)

Pablo's article on the Masters versus the Ascended Masters and Govert's reply, etc. have made me think back to how I first came to Theosophy and my subsequent study and research.

I first read about Theosophy through reading books by Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater.  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 Theosophical Masters other than HPB, CWL and AB and that most of these claims were made after HPB's death.

Bailey, Prophet, Purucker, Judge, Tingley, Ballard, Chaney, etc. 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?

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 Blavatsky 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 same 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.....what were the original claims, teachings, etc. of H.P.B.?

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. 

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.?

Moving on....

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.,  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.

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. 

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?

Daniel
http://hpb.cc





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]