Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00589)

According to 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?
>
> 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? 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. Adepts may have a global vision, but don't you
think they act locally?
>
> 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. 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.
>
> 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?

 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.
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? 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? Deductive processes without
a trace of inductive input tend to run that way.

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. 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
human being." In fact, as HPB and the MLs make clear, they all
DO appear to be normal human beings to those around them.

Namaste
Paul