Theos-Talk Archives (September 1999 Message tt00044)

Dear Rich,

Sometimes I get the feeling that you would disagree with Dallas whatever he
says.  You certainly seem to have vented a fair piece of criticism in this
recent post.

And now we have some more sweeping generalisation with which to paint
students of HPB's works.  The recent one in this group has been that we are
all stuck in the past, followed by the 'implied' criticism from you that we
are all suffering from arrested development from the time HPB's guidance
ceased.  And the last one is that we are all copping out because we have the
temerity to believe that we might not become full blown Adepts in this life.
Oh dear!

> The sense of finality in Dallas' writings, that we have the last
> word with HPB, and that she somehow "lives" invisibly in the aether
> about us gives the lie to the entire program of the Great Lodge's work.

It was only in a very recent post, Rich, that you said the Masters were
still actively working in the world, which is no different from what Dallas
has said.  Only while you and others are saying we now need to look
elsewhere for their influence, (in fact some theosophists don't care for the
Masters and Hob's teachings or influence at all, it seems) Dallas is
suggesting that the teachings they brought into the world through their
direct agent, HPB, are therefore still worth pursuing.   And given that the
teachings come from the Great Lodge, as you refer to it, then we might also
consider that there is some reliable guidance contained therein for the
serious student on the Path.

>(It is a sad truth that a GREAT many adults today are
> in fact "arrested" in late adolescence and never learn
> to have adult relationships, take responsibility for
> their actions, learn to control anger and fear, etc.)

I reckon the personality gets stuck in all sorts of places that result in
the kinds of effects you describe, not just adolescence but more likely in
the earlier years of childhood.  But it is also true that many many people
have difficult and traumatic childhoods and adolescence and this does not
affect their capacity to take responsibility for their actions etc.    It is
often said that one of the things that characterises adolescent struggle is
the rebellion against 'authority' figures, whether actual or just perceived.
If not resolved this can continue well into adulthood and become a familiar
pattern in whatever organisation or group the individual finds themselves.

> Unlike ancient societies, or even modern India and Tibet,
> the West has no true SAGES.

I think that's a good point, Rich.  The village 'elder', the wise woman, the
'priestess' all the way up to "true Sage", these do seem to be missing from
our western culture. Yet HPB stated that she had met with Adepts from all
the continents, including those in Europe and England.  She even said that
within the Theosophical Society (during her time) there was a group run by a
Greek Brother totally unknown to other members of the society.  So we must
not judge by what appears on the surface.  However I do believe the serious
student will meet with 'help' along the way.  There are 'teachers' of
various degrees that may come across our path at the appropriate time.

> And then Theosophists advise us to ignore the SAGES that have
> come to us, at great personal expense, from the East.

I don't get the sense that Theosophists in general advise us to ignore all
the Sages.  There seem to me to be many views to be had on this issue so why
generalise one particular view to all of us.

> More and more I feel that Theosophists falter in their own wake.  HPB was
> such a great personage that Theosophists huddle around her fading
> auric glow and refuse to seek out MORE LIGHT --- absolutely neccessary to
have more
> light.

Another sweeping generalisation from which you condemn us all.  You exhibit
a very low and a very negative opinion of your fellow theosophists, Rich.
What I find curious is that you and Art say  students of HPB and the
Master's works are stuck in the past while at the same time suggesting we
should study the classics of the other religious traditions which are
themselves hundreds and thousands  of years old.  How old is the Bhagavat
Gita, for example, or the early scriptures of Buddhism.  And along with this
is the assumption that all these "Theosophists" have not studied these works
at all.

Have you considered that there are theosophists who have spent many years
studying the scriptures from other traditions and undertaken some of the
spiritual practices from those traditions and yet still find the teachings
of Theosophy as given by HPB and the Masters to be the 'well of wisdom'
above all others that they would rather drink from?  I say there are such
students of theosophy and I would count myself among them.  I am not ashamed
to say that I would rather have a few crumbs from the Master Moyra or KH
than a hundred Swedenborgs or Dalai Lama's.  And I say this without meaning
any disrespect to the latter two people.  It also does not bother me one
iota that someone may never have read a single piece of scripture from any
tradition.


> how many Theosophists among us have raised themselves to
> true Chela, let alone Adept status?  (Is this reserved only for
> unimaginably distant lives??  What a cop-out.)

Why should you and I know Rich, who among us has raised themselves to the
status of a "true Chela"?  and why should it be reserved for "unimaginably
distant lives"?  Are you confusing this with an earlier debate in this group
about reaching Nirvana and becoming Karmaless with the implication that we
will not then need to be reborn - ever?

> The only ones we can be SURE of (outside of the founders)
> are those named by HPB, for example Damodar, Mohini, others
> -- and EACH AND EVERY ONE WAS UNDER DIRECT SUPERVISION OF A
> MASTER OF WISDOM.

Yes, Damodar was definitely one of the two who 'got through', so we are
told.  Yet the "direct supervision" that you refer to is something that came
only at a certain stage, once the 'pupil' had proved themselves worthy of
it.  Up until that point they were 'on their own', so to speak and had to be
a lamp unto themselves, and if they failed whilst on probation and under
supervision they were thrown out and had to rely on themselves again.  In
fact the Master says that even the Chela is left to his/her own devices.  A
reading of the Mahatma letters, found in various sources, shows that a
number of people were discouraged by the Masters and HPB from becoming
Chelas, not for lack of a Teacher but because the would be pupils were not
yet ready.

> So it is quite a coy doublecross to instruct people now to rely solely on
> themselves and not seek out the spiritual riches that current
> teachers have LABORED and SACRIFICED to provide to us.  In doing so,
> we turn our backs on the very progress that our own tradition has
> made POSSIBLE in this century.

Rich, nobody is stopping you seeking out a current teacher from any where
that you might like to.  Do we not have minds of our own to listen to others
and yet still make our own choices.  Who is double crossing you in such a
coy way?  Are you refering to our friend Art, for example, who would rather
have Krishnamurti than a theosophical Master, or any other member of this
group who honours Krishnamurti.  For the latter would likely have told you
to throw away your classics, your books on Buddhism, and to stop seeking
some external figure and rely on yourself.

> And yet we should ignore them, and continue on with our
> bibliolatry (for example, all the calls recently posted
> to return once again to the study of the Key to Theosophy).

I think that is uncalled for, Rich.  About a week ago John said (having
already spoken of his difficulty with theosophy books) that he would "love
to see a book that was written for the average reader or even below."  In
response, Doss suggested the Key to Theosophy as a very good introduction,
and a couple of us seconded it.  What on earth is so bad about recommending
a Theosophy book on a Theosophy forum like this?

> If the modern Theosophical movement "arrests" with Blavatsky, then modern
> Theosophy is already dead.

There is no reason why the Theosophical movement should "arrest" with HPB
whose physical body died in the last century any more than Buddhism should
arrest because the Buddha 'died' some two thousand years ago and they have
been studying the same old Buddhist scriptures for hundreds and hundreds, if
not the last two thousand years.

...Peter


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.