Re: For Brenda re CWL
Aug 28, 1995 11:14 PM
by K. Paul Johnson
According to Brenda S. Tucker:
> work to do for them at a different level? I know that identifying the
> Masters as human has an unsurpassed appeal to you,
Whoa! To everything there is a season. Frankly, I'm
oversaturated with the topic, to the point of loss of
interest. But this is natural at the end of such a long
> What about those who are alienated by religion or society? Aren't the
> Masters themselves alienated?
Elegant-- an aspect I had not considered. HPB was in some ways
a real insider-- a minor member of the Russian royal family,
knowing the most important spiritual and political leaders in
many places around the world, the most learned woman of her
time-- but in other ways she was highly marginalized.
Unorthodox in her partnerships, in erratic contact with her
family, in cahoots with a variety of radicals and occultists,
HPB was about as far from mainstream as one could be-- and yet
in another way WAS the mainstream of her time. So her message
about Masters choosing someone like herself as their agent
speaks to the alienated, radical seeker in each of us. There
is something quite antinominian and liberating about the idea
that a heretic like HPB should in fact be the chosen instrument
of a brotherhood of wise men.
> our bidding? HPB had quite a bit of control over the elemental kingdoms it
> would seem. Once we accept the existence of powers, how can we use them to
> attract others to the "path?" In THE YOGA SUTRAS OF PATANJALI powers are
> presented as a very natural outcome of meditation. With Leadbeater as an
> example, couldn't we suppose that we, too, will find this of particular
> fascination as a discussion point in attracting others to "living the life."
> There is so much of the world that doesn't know or is unconcerned with
> mankind's future as powerful beings, because it isn't relevant for today.
> If we align ourselves with the path of occultism and then begin to notice
> powers within our nature similar to those we find in other noteworthy
> theosophists, will we be able to continue in society as normal human beings?
> I think that knowing that the masters have been able to do so with some
> secrecy of their true "thoughts" and "activities (at a thought level, but
> naturally eclipsing somewhat with the physical plane)" is very beneficial
> and should encourage others to keep striving in every possible way in their
> own lives.
> I want Paul to say you can live in society and develop yourself fully with
> these great teachers as examples and to some extent Leadbeater is an
> example. If I chose to discuss "psychic" activities here, does it deserve
> ridicule by those who want us to live "unagreeably" inclined to accept
> things without first hand knowledge? By being friends and acquaintances
> with someone who reads into theosophy that 1) as once The Theosophical
> Society served as an "objection" to false notions that were being spread
> widely in regards to eastern teachings, so 2) we shall always serve as an
> "objection" to false teachings regarding ANY esoteric teaching, are we
> thereby incapable of peaceful discussion, because objection must be so
> highly regarded. Even first-hand knowledge has its drawbacks because
> theosophy might be "lowered" instead of "raised" by it.
I agree that you can live in society and develop yourself
[fully I can't buy-- that's an unknowable and indefinable] with
HPB's Masters as examples and to some extent Leadbeater is an
example. I see CWL as a good example in one area-- his
unceasing efforts to perceive the invisible or inner worlds and
to share his observations. Along with Tillett, I see the early
(pre-1906) Leadbeater as a sincere explorer of the paranormal,
and value his clairvoyant explorations while not giving full
credence to them. Later is another story, which need not be
raised here again, not by me.
There's a point that you make, though, that brings up a real
existential crisis for me. I discovered the Theosophical
writings in the A.R.E. Library in Va. Beach, participated in
several A.R.E. study groups over the years, had many A.R.E.
people in our Tidewater Study Group and Branch (of Pasadena
T.S.) and have derived great aid from Cayce's guidelines on
meditation, diet, etc. Although vaguely, slightly able to see
auras since my teens, I have had an intense opening or
unfolding of this capacity in the last few months. It changes
my attitude to CWL somewhat. It has also led me to return to
It is scary in the contemporary Theosophical movement to be a
person who experiences some paranormal unfoldings and wants to
share them with others who have some knowledge. Why? The CWL
morality question has become intertwined with people's
attitudes toward clairvoyance. Let people know you see auras
and they are inclined to think you're deluded, or scheming to
take over something, or being taken over by the Dark
Brotherhood, or whatever. A.R.E. is a much more supportive,
grounded organization in which to deal with such issues. To
the extent that distaste for some aspects of CWL's life has
become a global revulsion from "the psychic," I think that's
deplorable. But it's a fact. Add to the above considerations
the fact that I've become an object of [disdain? fear?
reproach? anger?] by a fair number of Theosophists including
some highly placed ones. The upshot is that I've rejoined
A.R.E. in hopes that the sense of a spiritual "home"-- which
I've lost in Theosophy to a sad extent-- can once again be part
of my path.
Sorry to get so confessional, but you touched a nerve. I
sympathize with CWL's admirers to the extent that I know what
it feels like to never be sure when a Theosophist is going to
start mercilessly ridiculing you-- and it SUCKS. You all have
been in that vulnerable position for a long time, but at least
you have each other. People should
lighten up in their attitudes toward other people's
interpretations of Theosophy and use their JUDGING PROCESSES ON
THEMSELVES instead. (Latest wisdom courtesy of Myers-Briggs).
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application