Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00351)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...> 
wrote:


  
> The bottom line was "how dare you touch the sacred scripture with 
> your dirty historical hands"-- which is also the bottom line of 
some 
> Theosophists' rejection of historical investigation of the Masters. 

So here is a template in which one can fill in the blank:
> "One cannot possibly begin to understand the Theosophical Masters"
> 
> 1. ... *without a lifelong religious devotion to them.* (Eklund, 
who 
> would be supported in this to a certain extent by the religious 
> studies model.)
> 2. ...*without accepting the genuineness of the paranormal 
phenomena 
> attributed to them.* (Caldwell, at least as the objections were 
> expressed some years back.)
> 2a. ...*without rejecting the genuineness, etc.* (Meade, by and 
> large.)
> 3. ...*without understanding Blavatsky from a psychological POV in 
> terms of multiple personality etc.* (Maroney, as I understand him.)
> 4. ...*without detailed information about Blavatsky's associations 
> with Western secret societies, Indian political leaders and 
religious 
> reformers, etc.* (KPJ)
 
> This can go on and on and can apply to any figure in religious 
> history. What I wish could happen is that a thousand flowers would 
> be allowed to bloom without people trying to destroy one another's 
> flowers saying they have no right to coexist with the others. The 
> application of rigid categories and the insistence that a 
phenomenon 
> must be understood only in terms of those categories is not just a 
> problem of academicians. Humans are hard wired that way, going 
back 
> to fight/flight, eat or be eaten. We are also hard wired to 
perceive 
> nuances and entertain multiple perspectives, but perhaps only sages 
> can stay at that level on any consistent basis. That evolution is 
> proceeding in that direction for humanity at large is my faint hope.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul


Dear Paul:

Thank you very much for your thought-provoking reply. As number 5 in 
your list I would tentatively add the historical evidence: every 
culture has produced seers and there are close similarities in what 
they saw at a very deep level. For one thing, many of them clearly 
pointed out to oneness as a fundamental, primary reality. KH wrote 
that an adept is the flowering of a generation of enquirers. Neither 
M. nor KH claimed independence from a historical process. On the 
contrary, they clearly stated they were the natural outcome of it.

In a span of almost 130 years a kind of mytholgy was created around 
the idea of the Masters. As Daniel showed in one of his recent posts, 
after the passing of HPB a number of individuals claimed to be in 
contact with them. That list could probably be expanded *ad 
infinitum* nowadays since there are many, many groups and individuals 
with a similar claim. Yet, consider what Blavatsky herself wrote in 
the "Original Programme of the TS":

"(2) They [the Founders] had to oppose in the strongest manner 
possible anything approaching dogmatic faith and fanaticism—belief in 
the infallibility of the Masters, or even in the very existence of 
our invisible Teachers, having to be checked from the first."

"Belief in the Masters was never made an article of faith in the T.S. 
But for its Founders, the commands received from Them when it was 
established have ever been sacred."

I think this is important internal evidence to the fact that HPB 
never intended that a cult around the idea of the Masters should be 
created. Which brings me to refer to the mature Krishnamurti's view 
of the Masters. I had the opportunity to visit Krishnamurti centres 
in the US (Ojai, California), in England (Brockwood Park) and in 
India (Vasantha Vihar and Rishi Valley School). I met and had many 
conversations with a number of individuals who knew him closely. From 
one such individual I heard a most interesting account of a dialogue 
with Krishnamurti.

Q: "You have mantained in some of your public talks that the Masters 
are not important, that we should not be attached to them, and that 
they may not even exist. But there are written descritpions by 
yourself, when you were young, that you saw them [M. and KH]. How do 
you explain this?"

Krishnamurti's reply was very succint but revealing:

K: "They were two vast people."

Throughout his adult and mature life Krishnamurti refused to 
personalise the Masters, although he would use such words 
like "benediction", "sacredness" and "otherness". I am aware that 
many on this list would not accept this view.

As I said before, the world needs both scholars and sages. KH wrote 
that "science is our best ally". In one of his books, Dr Ravi 
Ravindra quotes from one of the Indian scriptures: "Prakriti [matter] 
is blind without Purusha [spirit], and Purusha is lame without 
Prakriti". Perhaps not many people know that David Bohm helped 
Krishnamurti to use words more accurately and also investigate the 
etymology of key words. A scholar and a sage in dialogue!

Let one thousand flowers bloom.


Pedro