Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00431)

> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Vladimir wrote:

> If this is the only refutation then there is no refutation at all.
> This author refutes something quite different from this 
contradiction:

Of course, the purport of the article wasn't to prove that AAB 
teaching is an absolute truth but to expose author's motives as having 
nothing common with theosophy and search for truth but dictated by 
personal jelousy.

> HPB & al. : No Adept ever marries
> AAB : Initiates and Masters, in many cases, marry

I think that there are no any strict conditions to which real 
liberated beings should subject. "You shall be not under law but under 
blessing", as St. Paul has well put it. From our limited point of view 
there's a choice, to marry or not, and we make a conclusion and later 
make a strict rule of it. For example it seems to us, that a buddha 
has a choice, to accept nirvana or became a bodhisattva and to save 
other people. It's one point of view. Others think that a buddha 
doubles, leaving a boddhisattva behind. But I think that really he is 
one, for by the very fact of his liberation he has overcome any pairs 
of opposites (dvandva, as Bhagavad-Gita calls them). So with the 
marriage. It may seem to us that they marry or not, but nevertheless 
they abide in the perfect pure state.
But for different purposes the different gurus empasize one or another 
seeming aspect of their being.
For example, Master K.H. have lost an important letter and it was 
eaten by a goat. Later he had to ask permission of Mahachohan to 
restore it. What for did he tell us this story? I think that to show 
us that Mahatmas when incarnated are many respects people like us, and 
that occult powers shoudn't be used for self gratification. But others 
could conclude from this story that
1) Mahatmas lack concentration and in this respect are inferior even 
to mere businessman who shall never lose an important letter SUCH WAY, 
unless he is very drunk.
2) Mahatmas are not free and subject the discipline which is even 
stricter than in any army, when a soldier at least may decide for 
himself according to the situation when he is left alone and has no 
any definite order.

> Any more points?

As for article in "Theosophical history", I haven't fount it yet.

Anyway we are in many respects breaking the rules for raja-yoga 
disciples which I have stumbled upon recently:

"If others discuss anything too much in your presence do not interrupt 
them but keep a mental cut off until the discussion is over. Do not 
disagree with others. Try to sympathise with the other man's point of 
view to allow him to suggest anything and leave off that which is not 
conductive to you. 'Listen to what others need but not what others 
wish. Unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in 
all motives'. These are the catchwords of the Masters to their 
disciples in the path of Raja Yoga. 

Never try to compare or contrast Gurus and their work. Never evaluate 
or find fault with the work of any Master. Eliminate the nature of 
fault-finding. Do not advise when not asked. Do not keep away
from advising when you are asked. Do not advise in matters which you 
do not know clearly." (Spiritual psychology by E.Krishnamacharya)

I think that it theosophist followed the principle of "Unity in 
essentials and liberty in non-essentials" their work would be more 
effective and better appreciated in the world.