Theos-Talk Archives (February 1995 Message tl00242)

Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes:

> I was trying to sit back and learn why I was so negative about
> the "Mahatma Letters", their percipitation of letters and all the
> hocus-pocus that surroun them.  l think, part of it is a desire
> to be a devil's advocate, in some way.

Hang in there, and try to keep an open mind! No one should ask
you to have faith in something you consider to be incorrect or
without foundation.  Credulity is worse than skepticism.  By the
same token, be aware that you don't know everything.

> Many people turn away from theosophy BECAUSE of the percipitated
> letters and teacups and various bric-a-brac.

That's their prerogative.  (It's a splendid tea-cup, by the way
:) And the letters make interesting reading.

> Someone wrote that if the Masters don't exist then "The Secret
> Doctive" is a fraud.  Why? BIG, BIG WHY? "The Secret Doctrine"
> (IMHO) stands are falls on its own merits and does not need the
> Master of the leaves of Kiu-Ti (spelling to back it up.

You might be referring to my post, although this isn't exactly
what I said.  I think it would be a mistake to take the Secret
Doctrine out of context.  You need to look at HPB, her
motivations, and contemporary developments to understand what the
TS is about, in my opinion.  There is extensive TS literature on
the existence of the Masters, and even suggesting that they
provided a lot of the information in the SD.  HBP was adament on
this point.  If she would lie about this fundamental fact, she
would lie about other things in the Secret Doctrine.  The same
goes for Olcott, Besant and others.  If you don't want to
understand the theosophical movement as a whole, and prefer to
concentrate soley on the SD, that's fine.  But me, I like to know
my sources.  If I was going to have surgery, I would like a
qualified doctor to carry it out.  If I am going to study
cosmogenesis, I would like a qualified adept/seer to teach me -
not some day-dreaming bozo.

  This is theosophical fundamentalism and is doing more to hold

> back theosophy in the largerst since as in the totality of the
> Ancient Wisdom and is doing very little to bolster the T.S.  as
> an organization (IMHO)

How do you define fundamentalism? Why should we bolster the
organization?

> So, I personally, have been suffering an identity crisis in that
> I decided no to post until I could post something positive.

Yeah, who are you, after all?

  I think that the Masters have

> lot more to do with DIVINE PRINCIPLES than quasi-historical
> quasi-human being

Divine principles we all have, but aren't all so hot at
manifesting.

> The Masters have been talked about in terms of the 7 rays and 7
> levels.  I th this may be more productive to an understanding in
> our psychological and phenomenological age.  This of course will
> be surpassed as we evolve.

This might prove an interesting topic for discussion.  THe 7 Rays
have been pretty neglected lately, because of a rash of assigning
Rays to people a few years back.  But I think its pretty
interesting.

 The id

> that the Masters spoke to Sinnett and HPB but the age of miracles
> is past so

So called "miracles" still happen!

> have to spend our time looking backward to the thesophical
> scriptures of the late 19th century, the way fundamentalist
> Christians look to the Bible only a Islam to the Koran, strikes
> me as unhealthy.

We could abandon all texts, and seek the fast track to
enlightenment.  Maybe some Tantric sex might raise the kundalini,
without having to read a word! (I shouldn't get too sarcastic, I
suppose - but actually this is an option.)

> Of course I am in no position to judge "The Mahatma Letters" and
> I was not trying to.  I was "judging" the dependence on them as
> the justification of th T.S.  etc.

The ML are no justification for the TS.  They were originally
private correspondence.  But they do provide interesting study.

ASTREA