[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Does HPB support scholars and Masters Revealed ?

Feb 18, 2006 03:33 AM
by M. Sufilight

Hallo all,

My views are:

I will politely say, that
If Theosophy in general supports scholars, then I have to say, that I
disagree with Theosophy.

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- From: "Desmontes" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Salience, valence, HPB, and scholars

From: "kpauljohnson" <>

"Here von Egmond is implying, correctly in my view that the previous
attitude toward HPB among scholars had generally been that the
Masters were figments of fantasy and that therefore HPB herself did
not deserve serious attention in terms of studying her sources. Why
would Adyar not welcome this? It undermines the unassailable CWL,
for one thing. If HPB's Masters are acknowledged by scholars to have
been real, then the contrast with CWL's imaginary ones becomes all
too glaring."

Thank you for your comments. It is nice to see an author entering into
dialogue with his community of readers. Personally, with regard to study and
research, I tend to take the impartial position of Francis Bacon who states
in his essay on Studies, "Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe
and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and
consider." Not only do to I apply this wise aphorism to your book "The
Masters Revealed", which gives one much to weigh and consider, but also to
Theosophical literature in general. Your book provides an excellent service
to the Theosophical Community by setting forth intelligently a viewpoint
unsanctioned by the official organization. I am of the opinion that an
intellegent reader will not give much credence to the extravagent claims of
C.W. Leadbeater. Blavatsky on other hand is a force to be reckoned with. Her
claims to the supranormal abilities of the Masters are explained in a manner
that is rational and to a degree believable. While it is impossible for the
discriminating reader to accept uncritically the claims of such abilities,
her explanations enable one to retain an open mind with regard to the
possilibility while personal experience is lacking.

In "The Masters Revealed" you set forth the thesis that "most of these
characters were authorities in one or more spiritual traditions; others were
accomplished writers. They helped prepare HPB for her mission as a spiritual
teacher and/or sponsored the Theosophical Society from behind the scenes.
Although their teachings and example affected HPB's development, the extent
of their influence was usually secret. In a few cases the argument for their
acquaintence with HPB is speculative, but usually the fact of a relationship
is well established and the real question is its meaning. Because their
'spiritual status' and psychic powers are inaccessible to historical
research, these alleged criteria of 'Mahatmaship' are treated with
agnosticism." (p. 14-15) Personally, I see in these few words not only a
lack of personal bias but also an abundance of integrity. I also see no
conflict between this perspective and HPB's most sober descriptions of the
Masters in the Key To Theosophy. To paraphrase (combining the questions and
answers), she wrote in substance:

"The Masters are neither supernatural beings, nor "myths". If you listen to
what people say, you will never have a true conception of them. In the first
place, they are living men, born as we are born, and doomed to die like
every other mortal. Many miraculous claims are put forth on their behalf and
the more we try to set people right, the more absurd do the inventions
become. The word "Mahatma" simply means a "great soul." If the title of
great is given to a drunken soldier like Alexander, why should we not call
those "Great" who have achieved far greater conquests in Nature's secrets,
than Alexander ever did on the field of battle? Besides, the term is an
Indian and a very old word. We call them "Masters" because they are our
teachers; and because from them we have derived all the Theosophical truths,
however inadequately some of us may have expressed, and others understood,
them. They are men of great learning, whom we term Initiates, and still
greater holiness of life. They are not ascetics in the ordinary sense,
though they certainly remain apart from the turmoil and strife of your
western world." (Sec. 14)

Don't lose heart. You may have detractors in various Theosophical
Organizations, but if Madame Blavatsky were alive today, we can expect that
she would give you her thanks, both for the honesty of your inquiry and also
for rescuing the Mahatmas from the fantastic delusions which are perpetuated
in their name, something which she sought time and again to accomplish but
to little avail as is evident from our modern situation.


Yahoo! Groups Links

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application