Sep 02, 2006 07:30 AM
by Mark Jaqua
Re: Visualizaing masters
Dan says: "Think about it!"
- I Have thought about it. It didn't
seem right and made me a little ill
the first time I saw it, and still
does. There is a lot of esoteric
material throughout Blavatsky's and
the MLs, and I doubt there is anything
else SPECIFICALLY about visualization
as a spiritual practice (beyond what
is needed in mental work in general.)
Those quotes you used about the
"minds eye," etc. are not specific.
Visualization over time probably
makes elementals, like the example
in David-Neel's "Mystery and Magic
in Tibet" where it resulted in a
tulpa or plaguing spook. If it was
an important practice it would be
refered to SPECIFICALLY in more
than one place. Repeated practice
of this visualization would likely
create an elemental. I think
"the Path" is largely to develop
self-reliance as much as possible
on One's Own inner self (not a
visualization) - the same spiritual
source the adepts have. Utimately,
you can ONLY rely on one's own
determinations about incongruous
written material, as no one has
direct access to real adepts.
- The ES Instruction with the
visualization comment in it was
issued AFTER HPB's death.
Things do "slip in" and slip by,
especially with someone who was under
the pressures that Judge was. I
assume this paragraph is in the
facsimile in your THE ESOTERIC PAPERS
OF MADAME BLAVATSKY. (pages 599-622.)
Was this instruction "recalled" ?
Someone sent me a copy of the original
mimeograph of Garrangues "Point Out
the Way," and I swear the typist
inserted some phoney stuff in it
in a few places, as out of character
with the rest of the book.
Regardless, even if it is
something that did not slip by, and
Judge consciously and purposively
put it in the instruction, I - for
myself - do not agree with or accept
it as written, and I don't care if
Judge wrote it or not. I've got
that right I think??? I can't think
of any Blavatsky or Mahatma material
that strikes me as "wrong" as this
does. I get the same reaction from
a few other of Judge's remarks -
like that "you should never throw
anyone out of your heart", which I
think he got carried away on and
is "wrong" too. He was a chela
working on his own. Who knows if
everything was "corrected" by an
adept or higher chela or not?
We're already in a world of illusion,
why create more illusions by visualization.
People can take this one statement
on visualization (if not phoney) and
extend it into an endorsement of
visualization practices in general,
which finds no support in the literature.
I also still think that Judge's
private diary should not be given
the weight that it is. One might
put anything in a private notebook,
passing notions or experiments one
has discarded, etc.
- jake j.
<9. Jake on Visualization, Judge's Diary & the Mahatma Letters
<Posted by: "danielhcaldwell" email@example.com
Date: Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:14 am (PDT)
<Thanks to Daniel for the information - source
of quote BCW XII, p. 696. I still think it is a wrong
<practice, or not explained sufficiently, and dangerous.
If it didn't "just slip by Judge," I think Judge is wrong.
<Is a facsimile of the original instruction online? I
don't like the idea of visualizing in general. When
we are in a world of illusion, why create more illusion?
<'Also think it is a big mistake to put too much weight
on Judge's or anybody's personal diary. Who knows
<what anything might mean, they are just notes to
oneself, or keys of things to think about.
<Concerning your comment that
<"If it didn't 'just slip by Judge,'..."
<"Also think it is a big mistake to put too much weight
<on Judge's or anybody's personal diary. Who knows
what anything might mean, they are just notes to
<oneself, or keys of things to think about."
<Think about it....
<(1) Judge saw fit to transcribe in his 1888 diary these
quotes from KH.
<(2) in E.S. Instruction V published several years later,
Judge decides to add these quotes FOR ALL esoteric members to read
<How can one reasonably entertain the idea that the quotes
may have "JUST slip by Judge" into this instruction?
<I would suggest that he make a conscious
decision to add the quotes or they would not have
appeared in this instruction.
<(3) Furthermore, starting in 1889 and 1890 Julia Keightley,
a trusted associate of Judge, starts quoting and
<paraphrasing this SAME KH material in the pages
of THE PATH. Keep in mind that THE PATH was for the
<PUBLIC and that Judge was the editor. Surely one can
conclude that it was NO accident or NO "slip" that lead
to the public publication of some of this material in THE PATH.
<(4) Plus there are indications that this material from
KH was distributed to other members of the E.S. DURING
<Surely Judge and HPB were aware of what was published in THE PATH
or given to members of the ES.
<And both Alice Cleather (member of HPB's Inner Group)and Basil Crump
<quote some of this material indicating that they knew of the
existence of this KH material.
<So the situation is much more than simply finding supposed
KH quotes in Judge's personal private diary.
<And since this discussion brings up the issue of "phoney"
Mahatma letters, one might consider what HPB herself wrote
in Oct. 1888:
<...We have been asked by a correspondent why he should not "be free
<to suspect some of the so-called 'precipitated' letters as being
<forgeries," giving as his reason for it that while some of them bear
<the stamp of (to him) undeniable genuineness, others seem from their
<contents and style, to be imitations. This is equivalent to <saying
that he has such an unerring spiritual insight as to be able to
<detect the false from the true, though he has never met a Master,
<nor been given any key by which to test his alleged communications.
<The inevitable consequence of applying his untrained judgment in
<such cases, would be to make him as likely as not to declare false
<what was genuine, and genuine what was false. Thus what criterion
<has any one to decide between one "precipitated" letter, or another
<such letter? Who except their authors, or those whom they employ as
<their amanuenses (the chelas and disciples), can tell? For it is
<hardly one out of a hundred "occult" letters that is ever written by
<the hand of the Master, in whose name and on whose behalf they are
<sent, as the Masters have neither need nor leisure to write them;
<and that when a Master says, "I wrote that letter," it means only
<that every word in it was dictated by him and impressed under his
<direct supervision. Generally they make their chela, whether near or
<far away, write (or precipitate) them, by impressing upon his mind
<the ideas they wish expressed, and if necessary aiding him in the
<picture-printing process of precipitation. It depends entirely upon
<the chela's state of development, how accurately the ideas may be
<transmitted and the writing-model imitated. Thus the non-adept
recipient is left in the dilemma of uncertainty, whether, if one
<letter is false, all may not be; for, as far as intrinsic evidence
<goes, all come from the same source, and an are brought by the same
<mysterious means. But there is another, and a far worse condition
<implied. For all that the recipient of "occult" letters can possibly
<know, and on the simple grounds of probability and common honesty,
<the unseen correspondent who would tolerate one single fraudulent
<line in his name, would wink at an unlimited repetition of the
deception. And this leads directly to the following. All the so-
<called occult letters being supported by identical proofs, they <have
all to stand or fall together. If one is to be doubted, then all
<have, and the series of letters in the "Occult World," "Esoteric
<Buddhism," etc., etc., may be, and there is no reason why they
<should not be in such a case-frauds, "clever impostures,"
and "forgeries," such as the ingenuous though stupid agent of
<the "S.P.R." has made them out to be, in order to raise in the
public estimation the "scientific" acumen and standard of
<So if one might consider the material under consideration
as "phoney" (your term) then one might also consider Olcott's
<view on the Prayag Mahatma Letter (Letter #134 in the first three
<editions of the Mahatma Letters). Apparently Olcott believed
this letter was "phoney" and did NOT originate from the Mahatma.
<It would appear Olcott could NOT believe that the Mahatma could have
<written what was in Letter #134. Is this SIMILAR to your contention
<that Mahatma KH could NOT have possibly written about visualizing
<the Master within???
Food for thought...
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application