Theos-Talk Archives (September 2006 Message tt00365)

Portraits & "whole process of creating the illusion":  
Reflections/Questions

Carlos, 

Thanks for your reply at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/36039

You state:

=======================================================
Please consider that the abuse of portraits is worse than 
merely "popularizing" the names of the Masters.

It is part and parcel of the whole process of creating the illusion 
that they are "personalities".

While HPB wrote "The Key", the abuse had not reached the portraits 
yet!

I am confident in that you can calmly consider this, with no 
feelings of automatic rejection about any thoughts which are 
different from your own.
==================================================================

But Carlos, it seems to me that you are sidestepping the main issue 
I have been asking about.

You yourself wrote previously:

======================================================
Presenting Adeptship not as a fact which occurs at the higher levels
of consciousness, but downgrading it as something related
to "personal names", physical personalities and portraits – such an
action closes the door to a higher perception of things, for
thousands of ill-advised people.

If the first idea of the Masters, in the mind of a neophyte, is
drawn at the personalistic level, the whole learning process starts
from illusion and from a narrow view of life.
============================================================

In this statement of yours, you seem to state that:  

IF "in the MIND of a neophyte" the "first idea of the Masters" is 
drawn at "the personalistic level" --- i.e. by relating the
Masters to personal names, physical personalities and portraits, --- 
then (as you go on to say)"the whole LEARNING PROCESS starts from 
illusion and from a narrow view of life" and the end result is
"the closing of the door to a higher perception of things." caps 
added

But if this is really a valid concept of a real PROCESS that can 
occur in the MIND and that can occur today in 2006, then I suggest 
that it must have also been a valid concept and real process that 
could occur in the mind of a neophyte in 1881 or 1882 or 1884 or 
1890.

And one would think that HPB, KH and M as occultists would have 
known such was the case and would have avoided anything to aid this 
tendency and process.

But from the historical records during HPB's lifetime, it appears 
that in fact HPB, KH and M were all guilty of doing this very thing -
-- that is of PLANTING in the minds of neophytes the "idea of the 
Master" in terms of personal names, physical personalities and 
portraits.

Therefore, I state again what I said in my previous posting with my 
attending questions.

In 1890 H.P.B. decided to allow her esoteric students to have copies 
of the portraits of the Masters for their personal use.

It should here be noted that in 1890-91 there were approximately 
1000 students in H.P.B.'s Esoteric School.

So the questions remain:

Why was H.P. Blavatsky allowing in 1890 this number of students to 
have access and copies of the portraits of the Masters if all you 
have said in the quote above applies to the mind of these neophytes?

By allowing her esoteric students to have portraits of the Masters -
certainly these portraits conjure up physical personalities and
personal names! - isn't H.P.B. doing what you say should not be done,
i.e., allowing the idea of the Masters to be drawn down to the
personalistic level?

Wouldn't this giving of portraits with the names , etc. be in fact 
HELPING and AIDING "the whole PROCESS of creating the illusion that 
they are 'personalities'"?

Daniel
http://hpb.cc