Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01358)

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote:
> JRC writes,
>
> > Fact is, we have *no* idea why the Adepts choose
> > some people and not others for "personal training". Do you mean to say
> > you actually understand the *standards by which their choices are made*?!!!
>
> Yes ! <gasp, gasp, choke>

> HPB left a whole bunch of articles describing what was needed to make even
> the FIRST STEPS OF APPROACH to the Masters.  I assume you have seen her
> articles on "Mahatmas and Chelas" etc.  If not, RUN, don't walk, to the
> nearest collection of HPB articles.
	Yes, and the Masters left numerous signs that their purpose in
starting the TS was *not* to provide a "recruiting" station for people
who wanted to become chelas. From ML #2:
	"To our minds then, these motives, sincere and worthy of every
serious consideration from the worldly standpoint, appear -*selfish*...
They are selfish because you must be aware that the chief objeect of the
TS is not so much to gratify individual aspirations as to serve our
fellow man; and the real value of this term "selfish", which may jar upon
your ear, has a peculiar significance with us which it cannot have with
you; therefore, and to beegin with, you must not accept it otherwise than
in the former sense. Perhaps you will better appreciate our meaning when
told that in our view the highest aspirations for the welfare of humanity
become tainted with selfishness if, in the mind of the philanthropist,
there lurks the shadow of desire for self-benefit or a tendency to do
injustice, even when these exist unconsciously to himself. Yet you have
ever discussed but to put down the idea of a universal Brotherhood,
questioned its usefulness, and advised to remodel the T.S. on the
principle of a college for the special study of occultism. This, my
respected and esteemed friend and Brother-will never do!"

> >  From all accounts, the spiritual kingdom, when it chooses to
> > interact directly with the human kingdom, does not do so for the purpose
> > of enlightening a few humans who might be "ready", but does so in a very
> > project-specific way;
>
> This is an interesting theory -- I'm all ears.  What are your reasons for
> believing this?  Honestly, I'm willing to hear you out on this.  But at this
> point, it seems you have entirely missed the main thrust of HPB's work.  She
> dedicated it "FOR THE FEW."
	Yes, but the work of the Masters is clearly dedicated to the
"many".

> >  HPB did operate with free will. She ran her own ES, and she set
> > the criteria for those *she wanted to teach*. And its questionable as to
> > whether she formed it to "staunch the tide and try to turn it around", as
> > it was a singular failure if that was its intention.
>
> Why is the ES suddently HPB's "free will," while the T.S. is the work of her
> Masters?  Come on !  Besides which, HPB wrote in black and white what the ES
> was formed was to do.  Let me quote so there is no room for equivocation:
>
> "The Theosophical Society had just entered upon the fourteenth year of its
> existence; and if it had accomplished great, one may almost say stupdendous,
> results on the exoteric and utilitarian plane, it had proved a dead failure
> on all those points which rank foremost among the objects of its original
> establishment .... [lots of examples] ... For this reason it was decided to
> gather the 'elect' of the T.S. and to call them to action.  It is only by a
> select group of brave souls, a handful of determined men and women hungry for
> genuine spiritual development and the acquirement of soul-wisdom, that the
> Theosophical Society at large can be brought back to its original lines."
>
> Therefore I don't think it is questionable what her intentions were.  As to
> whether it was a failure -- I think we each find our own answer for that.
>                       <snip>
> Why do you assert that HPB could choose people without the Master's
approval?
>  Do you think that in such an important matter as who was to lead the occult
> work of the TS HPB just kind of did her own thing, while the Masters were
> busy elsewhere?
>
> It is certainly possible that many, many people have the proection of the
> Masters, whether in or out of the TS let alone the ES.  What does that prove?
> My point is that HPB formed the ES at the EXPLICIT direction of her Teachers,
> and students were guided by Them through HPB.  If you don't care to believe
> it, so what?
	ML #28: K.H. to Hume:
"...We (the Chiefs and I) entirely repudiate the idea that such was our
hope (however we might wish it) in regard to the A.I. Society. The
aspiration for brotherhood between our races met no response-nay, it was
pooh-poohed from the first-and so, was abandoned even before I had
received Mr. Sinnet's first letter. On his part, and from the start, the
idea was solely to promote the formation of a kind of club or "school of
magic". It was, then, no "proposal" of *ours*, nor were we the "designers
of the scheme". Why then, such efforts to show us in the wrong? It was
Mad. B. - not *we*, who originated the idea; and it was Mr. Sinnet who
took it up. Notwithstanding his frank and honest admission to the effect
that being unable to grasp the basic idea of *Universal Brotherhood* of
the Parent Society, his aim was but to cultivate the study of occult
Sciences, an admission which ought to have stopped at once every further
importunity on her part, she first succeeded in getting the consent-a
very reluctant one I must say-of her own direct chief, and then my
promise of cooperation-as far as I could go. Finally, through my
mediation, she got that of our highest CHIEF, to whom I submitted the
first letter you honored me with. .... But a "hot-bed of magic" we never
dreamt of."
	This refers to not the ES, but to an earlier attempt along the
same lines. From the beginning of the Society there was continual tension
between the Master's desires to spread the idea and practice of universal
brotherhood, and the desire of the members - even the best of them - to
get personal instruction, to gain the opportunity for *personal*
admittance into the "mysteries". I do not think there is any evidence
that it was *ever* the intention of the Adepts to begin a school of
occultism, rather, with reluctance they helped HPB in *her* desire to do
so, and *always* added the stipulation that in doing so the work of
universal brotherhood - the actual *intention*, the *project*, of the TS
- had to remain foremost in the minds of the students.
	It appears, at least to me, that the Masters continually foresaw
the great danger of any such activity ... that rather than expending
effort to spread the idea, philosophy and practice of universal
brotherhood ... a philosophy the present world clearly *badly*, even
desperately, needs articulated ... Theosophy would become little more
than people who believed its main activity was the study of occult
science, and expended the greatest degree of their efforts in attempts to
qualify *themselves* for initiation into the mysteries.

> >  Certainly deluded by your standards. But your standards are not
> > those of the Masters.
>
> And how do you know that?  For all you know I could be the Maha-chohan
> Himself, or the lowliest pip-squeak of a neophyte.  Why is it that you
> condemn me for making value judgments based on the writings of HPB and the
> Masters, and yet presume to judge me and my level of attainment?  Why, I
> could be a Black Magician -- how could you know?
	This is a delibrate reflection Rich. It is a value judgement
based on *my* reading of the writings of the Masters. The point I was
attempting to make was that there is a difference between *your*
judgements "based" on the writings of HPB and the Masters, and the
*actual* judgement of the Masters. Our minds, our range of awareness and
comprehension, are smaller, are *subsets* of those of the Masters. Their
writings are vast, and one can enter that ocean with any particular
perspective, and swimming in it, can attract hundreds of quotations that
will back up that perspective - but it is quite another thing altogether
to make what (IMO) is a big mistake and believe *our conceptualizations*
of the values of the Masters are identical with their *actual* values.

> >  Perhaps after you've lived a few more years, withstood a good
> > deal more of suffering and involved yourself in the lives of "poor orphan
> > humanity", you'll understand that those Three Objects, and especially the
> > First,
>
> More judgment from JRC.  What is your basis for such condescencion toward me
> -- that I don't live up to *your* standards?  But you are making your *own*
> standards, and I am trying to grasp what the Masters and HPB have said.  If I
> am inaccurate in so doing, by all means point it out.  But your AD HOMINEM
> tone really doesn't help "wake up" the people you may be trying to reach.
	No, I'm not making my "own" standards, anymore than you are. and
this was the point. Might it just be possible that someone that has been
trying to "grasp what HPB and the Masters have said" for a good decade
and a half longer than you have may have come to conclusions different
than those you currently hold? Do you not expect *your own* views to be
very different a decade from now? Two decades from now? Believe it or
not, I've read all the literature you have Rich ... and probably a good
deal more as I've been at it just as intensly and for considerably
longer. Judge and G de P were quite attractive to me in my 20's. It took
considerable time, and a lot of contemplation, before I was even fit to
grasp the beginnings of what is truely latent in the idea of Universal
Brotherhood.
	My point in writing that sentence was again to reflect something
.. a tone that seems to reside in all your writings. You seem to confuse
*your understanding* of the Masters philosophy with *their* understanding
of it ... and this is assumed throughout your response here - in which
you it is apparently not even conceivable that *your* understanding is
not the true one ... and if someone judges you, as you judge others, that
person is simply speaking their own opinions, while *you* are judging
according to the values of the "Masters".
	It was not a flame. Nor a judgement. And while you may
misunderstand my intention for saying this, it may be possible that you
will actually at least partially agree with it a decade from now. And in
the same way as you invite me to read the letters of HPB ... I would
invite you to begin the contemplation of "Universal Brotherhood" - which
in two words (IMO) encompasses and philosophy as vast as anything in the
Esoteric Writings - and indeed, enormously more difficult to understand
.. and requires a discipline far more rigorous than those required for
"personal spiritual growth" to practice.
					Best Regards (*really*),  -JRC