Theos-Talk Archives (September 2006 Message tt00058)

Hi Mark
I am on the same page as you with this topic.
Cass

Mark Jaqua <proto37@yahoo.com> wrote:                                  Re: Visualizaing masters
   
 Dan says: "Think about it!"
   
 - I Have thought about it.  It didn't 
 seem right and made me a little ill 
 the first time I saw it, and still 
 does.  There is a lot of esoteric 
 material throughout Blavatsky's and 
 the MLs, and I doubt there is anything 
 else SPECIFICALLY about visualization 
 as a spiritual practice (beyond what 
 is needed in mental work in general.)  
 Those quotes you used about the 
 "minds eye," etc. are not specific.  
 Visualization over time probably 
 makes elementals, like the example 
 in David-Neel's "Mystery and Magic 
 in Tibet" where it resulted in a 
 tulpa or plaguing spook.  If it was 
 an important practice it would be 
 refered to SPECIFICALLY in more 
 than one place.  Repeated practice 
 of this visualization would likely 
 create an elemental.  I think 
 "the Path" is largely to develop 
 self-reliance as much as possible 
 on One's Own inner self (not a 
 visualization) - the same spiritual 
 source the adepts have. Utimately, 
 you can ONLY rely on one's own 
 determinations about incongruous 
 written material, as no one has 
 direct access to real adepts.
   
     - The ES Instruction with the 
 visualization comment in it was 
 issued AFTER HPB's death.
   
     Things do "slip in" and slip by, 
 especially with someone who was under 
 the pressures that Judge was.  I 
 assume this paragraph is in the 
 facsimile in your THE ESOTERIC PAPERS 
 OF MADAME BLAVATSKY. (pages 599-622.) 
 Was this instruction "recalled" ?  
 Someone sent me a copy of the original 
 mimeograph of Garrangues "Point Out 
 the Way," and I swear the typist 
 inserted some phoney stuff in it 
 in a few places, as out of character 
 with the rest of the book.  
   
       Regardless, even if it is 
 something that did not slip by, and 
 Judge consciously and purposively 
 put it in the instruction, I - for 
 myself - do not agree with or accept 
 it as written, and I don't care if 
 Judge wrote it or not.  I've got 
 that right I think??? I can't think 
 of any Blavatsky or Mahatma material 
 that strikes me as "wrong" as this 
 does.  I get the same reaction from 
 a few other of Judge's remarks - 
 like that "you should never throw 
 anyone out of your heart", which I 
 think he got carried away on and 
 is "wrong" too.  He was a chela 
 working on his own.  Who knows if 
 everything was "corrected" by an 
 adept or higher chela or not?    
 We're already in a world of illusion, 
 why create more illusions by visualization. 
 People can take this one statement 
 on visualization (if not phoney) and 
 extend it into an endorsement of 
 visualization practices in general, 
 which finds no support in the literature.
   
       I also still think that Judge's 
 private diary should not be given 
 the weight that it is.  One might 
 put anything in a private notebook, 
 passing notions or experiments one 
 has discarded, etc. 
               - jake j.
   
 ----------
 <9. Jake on Visualization, Judge's Diary & the Mahatma Letters
     <Posted by: "danielhcaldwell" danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com 
 danielhcaldwell
     Date: Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:14 am (PDT)
   <Jake,
   <You write:
   =======================================================
 <Thanks to Daniel for the information - source
 of quote BCW XII, p. 696. I still think it is a wrong
 <practice, or not explained sufficiently, and dangerous.
 If it didn't "just slip by Judge," I think Judge is wrong.
 <Is a facsimile of the original instruction online? I
 don't like the idea of visualizing in general. When
 we are in a world of illusion, why create more illusion?
 <'Also think it is a big mistake to put too much weight
 on Judge's or anybody's personal diary. Who knows
 <what anything might mean, they are just notes to
 oneself, or keys of things to think about.
 =======================================================
   <Concerning your comment that 
   <"If it didn't 'just slip by Judge,'..."
   and 
   <"Also think it is a big mistake to put too much weight
 <on Judge's or anybody's personal diary. Who knows
 what anything might mean, they are just notes to
 <oneself, or keys of things to think about."
   <Think about it....
   <(1)  Judge saw fit to transcribe in his 1888 diary these
 quotes from KH.
   Then....
   <(2) in E.S. Instruction V published several years later, 
 Judge decides to add these quotes FOR ALL esoteric members to read
 and study.
   <How can one reasonably entertain the idea that the quotes
 may have "JUST slip by Judge" into this instruction?
   <I would suggest that he make a conscious
 decision to add the quotes or they would not have
 appeared in this instruction.
   <(3) Furthermore, starting in 1889 and 1890 Julia Keightley,
 a trusted associate of Judge, starts quoting and
 <paraphrasing this SAME KH material in the pages
 of THE PATH.  Keep in mind that THE PATH was for the
 <PUBLIC and that Judge was the editor.  Surely one can
 conclude that it was NO accident or NO "slip" that lead
 to the public publication of some of this material in THE PATH.
   <(4) Plus there are indications that this material from
 KH was distributed to other members of the E.S. DURING
 HPB's lifetime.
   <Surely Judge and HPB were aware of what was published in THE PATH
 or given to members of the ES.
   <And both Alice Cleather (member of HPB's Inner Group)and Basil Crump 
 <quote some of this material indicating that they knew of the 
 existence of this KH material.
   etc.
   <So the situation is much more than simply finding supposed
 KH quotes in Judge's personal private diary.
   <And since this discussion brings up the issue of "phoney"
 Mahatma letters, one might consider what HPB herself wrote
 in Oct. 1888:
   ==========================================================
 <...We have been asked by a correspondent why he should not "be free 
 <to suspect some of the so-called 'precipitated' letters as being 
 <forgeries," giving as his reason for it that while some of them bear 
 <the stamp of (to him) undeniable genuineness, others seem from their 
 <contents and style, to be imitations. This is equivalent to <saying 
 that he has such an unerring spiritual insight as to be able to 
 <detect the false from the true, though he has never met a Master, 
 <nor been given any key by which to test his alleged communications. 
 <The inevitable consequence of applying his untrained judgment in 
 <such cases, would be to make him as likely as not to declare false 
 <what was genuine, and genuine what was false. Thus what criterion 
 <has any one to decide between one "precipitated" letter, or another 
 <such letter? Who except their authors, or those whom they employ as 
 <their amanuenses (the chelas and disciples), can tell? For it is 
 <hardly one out of a hundred "occult" letters that is ever written by 
 <the hand of the Master, in whose name and on whose behalf they are 
 <sent, as the Masters have neither need nor leisure to write them; 
 <and that when a Master says, "I wrote that letter," it means only 
 <that every word in it was dictated by him and impressed under his 
 <direct supervision. Generally they make their chela, whether near or 
 <far away, write (or precipitate) them, by impressing upon his mind 
 <the ideas they wish expressed, and if necessary aiding him in the 
 <picture-printing process of precipitation. It depends entirely upon 
 <the chela's state of development, how accurately the ideas may be 
 <transmitted and the writing-model imitated. Thus the non-adept 
 recipient is left in the dilemma of uncertainty, whether, if one 
 <letter is false, all may not be; for, as far as intrinsic evidence 
 <goes, all come from the same source, and an are brought by the same 
 <mysterious means. But there is another, and a far worse condition 
 <implied. For all that the recipient of "occult" letters can possibly 
 <know, and on the simple grounds of probability and common honesty, 
 <the unseen correspondent who would tolerate one single fraudulent 
 <line in his name, would wink at an unlimited repetition of the 
 deception. And this leads directly to the following. All the so-
 <called occult letters being supported by identical proofs, they <have 
 all to stand or fall together. If one is to be doubted, then all 
 <have, and the series of letters in the "Occult World," "Esoteric 
 <Buddhism," etc., etc., may be, and there is no reason why they 
 <should not be in such a case-frauds, "clever impostures," 
 and "forgeries," such as the ingenuous though stupid agent of 
 <the "S.P.R." has made them out to be, in order to raise in the 
 public estimation the "scientific" acumen and standard of 
 <his "Principals."
 ==============================================================
   <So if one might consider the material under consideration
 as "phoney" (your term) then one might also consider Olcott's
 <view on the Prayag Mahatma Letter (Letter #134 in the first three 
 <editions of the Mahatma Letters).  Apparently Olcott believed
 this letter was "phoney" and did NOT originate from the Mahatma.
 <It would appear Olcott could NOT believe that the Mahatma could have
 <written what was in Letter #134.  Is this SIMILAR to your contention
 <that Mahatma KH could NOT have possibly written about visualizing 
 <the Master within???
   Food for thought...
   <Daniel
 ---------------
   
  
 
   
 ---------------------------------
 Do you Yahoo!?
  Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
 
 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 
 
     
                       

 		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

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