theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Frank on "Alice L. Cleather Writes about Mr. Judge and Mrs. Tingley"

Oct 03, 2004 01:02 AM
by ringding777


Daniel:

Frank,

Thanks for your comments at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/19354

You comment:

". . . Miss Cleather a lay chela . . . obviously was
not informed by HPB about higher occult matters as
to the question of successorship, what a messenger
is and how a chela is trained to recognize him. . . . "

Obvious to whom?

Frank:
Obvious to those to whom the matter is clear.
Henry T. Edge was obviously one of HPB's personal pupils who
has received higher occult knowledge than Miss Cleather. At
least his occult training made him able to recognize the
inner and outer signs of a messenger when he arrives. In the
quarrel with the fallen Conger - who did not stand the
training like AB - it turned out that it is only obvioulsy
to the few pupils of a theosophical teacher which are
capabale of higher occult training. Or to say it with
Goethe: You can't convince a fool that he is a fool.

Daniel:
Well, then WHO WAS INFORMED by HPB about these
higher occult matters??


Frank:
We know today - at least my humble self - that this higher
knowledge of what a guruparampara is and how it works - that
HPB has had the knowledge. We see her writing about the
frequently appearance of messengers coming from the Masters
of Wisdom and Compassion openly - so far as it was
possible - only mentioned the "outer rounds" (to use an
analogy) messengers, hiding the "inner rounds" messengers
doctrine before the blind. We know that the detailed occult
status of Judge was a secret at HPB's time and she never
revealed to the lay chelas his high occult status, which was
from one point of view even higher than hers.

We further know that this doctrine was known by several
chelas in London. I conclude like Mr Watson that they have
received this knowledge by HPB.
Obviously she taught it not public and not to every
theosophist or ES member. For example, I never found this
knowledge about the Masters plan to launch a parallel (not
serial, or at least serial to the half public) series in the
works of Franz Hartmann (with the limitation that oral
history reports about knowledge of Hartmann of the then
coming wars etc. which he did not write down, a knowledge he
had perhaps received by HPB).

We further know that Robert Crosbie had at least a glimpse
of this doctrine, as he used the term messenger in the
plural.

We further know that Annie Besant had at least a glimpse of
this doctrine, too, as she too taught also a messenger would
come, although she misunderstood and twisted it. That is a
good proof that such a knowledge was taught to a few
personal pupils which were ready to receive. If such a
doctrine of gurparampara would have never taught by HPB -
and that may have been one of the main reasons for her to
accept the further four years from Würzburg onwards, besides
the finalization of the SD - AB and others were have never
been able to twist it as you can only twist or fake
somehting what exists.

Private thesis: The progress of readiness for the higher
degrees is parallel to the publication of the SD and the
lost volumes (I think that parts of the projected vols. 3
and 4 where withdrawn for such reasons of readyness). Image
how HPB told Annie Besant, she has developed only brain mind
thinking, no higher principle at work ("all intellect",
HPB), trying to open her higher senses: Find the world
teacher, find him, it is most important for the next
century! It is your karma that you find him." Had she
understood her better, she had never invented the
Krishnamurti circus. The implicated enthusiasm, the rigid
atmosphere and the shwon fanatism and the the blind belief
are always signs of twisted ideals and virtues. We find it
everyday in the world, for individuals, for nations and for
races.

What we do not know directly (from documents, statements)
which these persons were who had this knowledge. It leads to
the question how esoteric knowledge of a person can be
recognized. The saying goes: Only an occultist can recognize
an occultist. Obviously we can judge HPB's pupils only by
their doing. Those who had the knowledge were doing the
right thing, they have supported both the Masters and their
agents. Those who have not received the knowledge did not
support them, going their own way, believing it was the best
way. Those who have received the knowledge but understood
only the half but did not grasp it or where overwhelmed by
personal desire for power were those blinds which taught the
other blinds the wrongs.

Annie Besant f.e. was thaught that the time was ripe that an
avatara comes to the world and teach the world the occult
science. She was sitting at HPB's ellbow but her eyes were
not open enough that she must not search for this world
teacher at the brach of Adyar but that these avatar was
quite near. Other examples could be given of higher oral
knowledge which HPB has given out of which we have no
documents of it, but we can reconstruct it from the
misunderstood, twisted exoteric versions.

Here you have a good rationale why the Dalai Lama writes in
his first book he has written in the West, "The Opening of
the Wisdom Eye", published 1973 by TPH, that both the
exoteric and the esoteric being a unity and must not
seperated. The Pali Buddhists or Theravadists do this
mistake. They only accept what they find in the Pali canon
and this is only the public words of the Buddha. They deny
that he taught elected chelas higher knowledge of which they
are not aware. They deny that boddhisattvas exists which
incarnate by free will to help suffering humanity. Is it not
curious that one can find the same patterns of these
different schools not only in Buddhism, Islam, Christanity,
but also in Theosophy although Theosophy want to bring to
light the one and linking esoteric kernel of each exoteric
religion?

Take f.e. the ULT. Launched in 1909, they started with the
knowledge that a guruparampara among the theosophical
teachers exists. The Rajah was accepted as the lawful and
true occult successor to HPB as teacher in the ES (in the ES
of 1875 he may have begun as chela, too). In the course of
time this knowledge faded away (either Crosbie lost it for
himself or never found anyone ready to receive it. There is
an occult saying that a cheal when he falls he is loosing
also his knowledge and can't understand what he understood
before) and today ULTers claim that HPB had a "unique
status" and that the Rajah was no messenger in the ascending
guruparampara.

The different schools of thought on the topic of messengers
(or interchangeable, analog any other topic) may be
tabulated as following:

1. HPB was the only messenger, she left no successor --
Cleather, ULT after Crosbie

2. HPB left a successor. It was Judge -- Edge, Keightley,
Savage family, Crosbie

3. HPB left a successor. It was Annie Besant -- Sinnett,
Leadbeater



Daniel:
And where is this recorded?


Frank:

At least in the hearts of the true HPB students, don't?
According to GdeP the esoteric will NEVER be published.
Who would profit from such records?
would it convince anyone who is not ready?

Daniel:
Again you write:

"I do not say that Cleather did not honestly say
what seemed to her to be the truth, but she was
unable to accept that there was higher knowledge
to which she had no access."

But in both of your quotes above, the implication
is that there was somebody who had access to
HIGHER KNOWLEDGE and HIGHER OCCULT MATTERS. Who
was this?

Most of the numerous claimants listed at:
http://blavatskyarchives.com/moderntheosophy.htm#Endnote
CLAIM they had access to such HIGHER OCCULT MATTERS.


Frank:

It was never lucky with this your lists as I always felt it
leads searchers into darkness.
Perhaps you should consider the chapter "The insignia
majestatis".


Daniel:

Notice what C.W. Leadbeater said about Mrs. Besant:

". . . there are other qualities, other powers, of
which you cannot know, because they pertain to the
secrets of Initiation. She is a pupil of our Masters;
from the fount of Their archaic wisdom she derives
her own. . . . "

In other words, you cannot know because you do not
have access to this HIGHER KNOWLEDGE.


Frank:
To know that there is higher knowledge is not the same as to
possess higher knowledge.
To know that there is unknown is not the same as to know the
unknown.


Daniel:

Therefore, if one should be rightfully skeptical
of Leadbeater's and Besant's claim to this higher
knowledge, then why not also skeptical of that same
claim as given in your posting?


Frank:

Scepticism is not knowledge.
I made no claim. I just offer my thoughts.
I always felt that theosophy is logical.
When Cagliostro was forced to tell all his knowledge he
replied that it makes no sense and explained the questioner:
If you have already the occult knowledge then it is
superfluous to teach it to you anew.
If you don't have the occult knowledge then it is
superfluous, too, as you will not understand it.


Daniel:
But how does one know that "the doctrine...was too high
to make it public..."?

Who made that claim besides you?


Frank:
Mmmmh. When I offer my thoughts in this list I never care
who else agrees with me or not. Do you want a voting about
occult matters?
If you know that vols. 3 and 4 were withdrawn because of the
partly failure of the London group, then you logically also
know that it was withdrawn as they never appeared in print.
I know that you have a different view.


Daniel:
You say:

"Farthing made a blind beleif dogma out of it without
understanding
of the inner meaning."

Again you are making a claim that Farthing made a blind
belief out of
the doctrine as given by HPB "without understanding of the
inner
meaning."

But how do you know that? Is that kind of claim any
different
than the claims made about Leadbeater by Pedro and Anand?


Frank:

To me not. Show me that Farthing did understood the inner
meaning (not the dead letter) and I apologize for my
misjudgment.


Daniel:
Here you make the claim that someone has an understanding of
the inner meaning. Who is that?


Frank:
Obviously de Purucker, Barborka or de Zirkoff understood the
inner meaning as it is proofed from their books.


Daniel:
You claim Sinnett, Leadbeater and Farthing got it wrong,
which implies that you know better, that you have insight
into
this that they didn't have.

Frank:

You are right. I think I understand the doctrine of the
rounds better than the above mentioned. But that does not
make me believe that I understand the whole of this
doctrine.


Daniel:
You have every right to claim this but a mere claim does not
in itself make it true.


Frank:
That is right, too.
But that is not my problem, because I understand the 
doctrine (may we hope).
Counter question: Which proof would you
accept on the question whether mars and mercury belong to
inner or outer rounds?














[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application