Re: A. Bailey & World Government
Sep 14, 1995 11:18 PM
by Eldon B. Tucker
>> I don't think, though, that they have any interest in governing us,
>> since we're at an entirely different phase in our development, and
>> need different social orders than would be appropriate among them.
>What do you mean by "entirely different?" How do you know?
We're working on the kama principle, as Fourth Rounders, and have yet
to undertake substantial work on our true humanness, the manasic
principle, for some time to come. As Fifth Rounders, they have undergone
and become capable of experiences that are not afforded to us at our
stage of development.
>> There's also the basic question: What do the Masters do with their time?
>> Some effort is made in keeping the human lifewave from getting derailed
>> in its evolution, in protecting us from disaster. More effort is made
>> to nurture our spiritual inclinations, and to foster the spiritual
>> awakening of as many of us as can be ripened early in the season.
>How do you think these things are done? On what do you base
>the above description?
>From my studies, enhanced by my own thinking. I don't personally know one.
>Somehow I get the impression that you
>see them as all wafting occult vibes around rather than getting
>involved in the nitty gritty of societal and personal transformation.
The work of protecting us against disaster is usually termed the "Guardian
Wall". Efforts like the Theosophical Society are attempts to awaken as many
of us that are ripe for something more, when speaking of the deeper Teachings,
and are aimed at a general nurturing of humanity in a more general sense.
Would you say that putting the right thought in someone's mind is any less
real than showing up in person to argue before a legislature for some particular
law? Are things without apparent physical means untrue and not really working
in life, until proven?
>Adepts may have a global vision, but don't you think they act locally?
Certainly I'd agree with you.
>> A third area of work which we've been told about is that they maintain
>> the equalivant of a spiritual university, where they study and preserve
>> the wisdom of mankind. This wisdom is learned and passed on from
>> generation to generation *as a living tradition*, something that is
>> taught and trained, rather than something that is simply read, since
>> it cannot be put down in written words.
>Is this on planet earth? Where have you seen it described?
>This is unfamiliar to me.
There's the idea of Shambala. And the Tower of Infinite Thought. And
the passage in The Secret Doctrine talking about how from one generation of
Adepts to the next, their wisdom is tested and reproven by personal
experience. This organized effort for learning and perserving wisdom could
reasonably be called a "spiritual university" even if we cannot identify
a physical campus, with classrooms and labs.
>I'm aware of HPB's comments about
>adepts scattered around the world, doing what they can to
>facilitate evolution. That all these adepts around the world
>somehow maintain a university strikes me as another serious
>literalization of a spiritual meaning.
Perhaps I should be more careful in wording the idea so that it is
not interpreted too literally.
>> I suspect that there's a fourth area of activity, although I don't
>> recall seeing it written about in our source literature. This is one
>> of "highly-advanced creativity." That is, they too can be artists,
>> poets, philosophers, musicians -- anything at all that is creative!
>> And with heightened faculties and ability to express the deeply
>> divine, most may feel compelled to do their best to give the fullest
>> expression to it. Why don't we see it? They are not doing it for
>> public presentations to humanity, since we would be unable to
>> comprehend much of it.
>What's your basis for this conclusion?
Starting off with "I suspect," I'm expressing the idea that follows as
my own, based upon what I've studied and thought about. Given that the
Masters are engaged in an on-going activity of learning, study, and
the passing on of knowledge from one generation to the next, we'd expect
that their "knowledge" includes all the creative endeavors, and not simply
metaphysical truths. And there's certainly nothing wrong with assuming that
however hard it may be for them, it is yet fun, creative, and fulfilling
to them. A study of the deepest that they know would necessarily be something
that is kept among themselves, since it would go far beyond anything that
they could share with the common man.
> It's just that they feel the same hunger as
>> any of us, a hunger to give deeper, fuller, richer expression to
>> the inexpressible.
>Eldon, somehow you give me the impression of talking as if you
>are basing your descriptions of adepts on personal knowledge.
Not personal knowledge from meeting them and their telling me these things.
>Aren't all your generalizations in fact based on a deductive
>process using postulates from Theosophical literature, rather
>than an inductive process based on observing real adepts?
My approach is based upon the theosophical literature, and upon my attempt
to take it further, in my own understanding, subject, of course, to corrections
from better ideas or further studies of the source literature leading me to
rethink these things.
>Does it not therefore seem highly likely that it is too neat, too
>oriented to categorizing and labelling, too focused on "higher"
>and "lower" levels-- i.e. elitist?
I see no difference in what I've said about the Masters than were I to talk
about a graduate college student studying deeper things in *his* classroom
than he talks about, when working as a teaching aid in a grade school.
It is not elitist to talk about stages of development and attempt to
understand what lies ahead for us. I'd rather find it a helpful thing to do.
>Deductive processes without a trace of inductive input tend to run that way.
It's possible to get "too neat" theory from either approach, one that becomes
dogmatic, rigid, crystallized, and with no room for growth and expansion.
This is precisely why I cannot accept the Jungian typology, for instance; it
is too neat, too rigid, too complete, too much of appearing to be a final
>This is relevant to me because in a recent post you commented
>that the Master nominees in my book are far below the ideal
>Theosophists hold of Masters, lacking the requisite qualities, etc.
There is a difference in where we might place the Masters on the evolutionary
scale between the depiction in your books and in typical theosophical
textbooks. So there may be a disagreement with where to place them on the
scale, but perhaps not a disagreement on the existence of the scale itself,
and the ability of some to race ahead in their spiritual evolution.
I won't deny that there are many failings and human limitations to the
Masters, *as we know them as Globe D men of flesh and blood.* But there
is also something more to them than apparent in the human personality that
most of us see, something that goes far beyond!
>This reminds me of the old Groucho line, "I wouldn't want
>to belong to any club that would accept someone like me as a
>member." In the orthodox Theosophical version, "I wouldn't
>accept anyone as a genuine Master who appeared to be a normal
No, they would generally *appear* as normal human beings, and even function
as such, at least part of the time.
>In fact, as HPB and the MLs make clear, they all
>DO appear to be normal human beings to those around them.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application