Theos-World Re: 7-years test for discipleship
Jan 01, 2008 10:58 PM
by Marko Manninen
On ML#62 K.H. talks to Sinnett:
"""True you have offered several times to give up meat and drink,
and I have refused. Since you cannot become a regular chela why should
you? I thought you had understood all this long ago; that you had resigned
yourself, satisfied to wait patiently for future developments and for my
"""My poor, blind friend -- you are entirely unfit for practical occultism!
Its laws are immutable; and no one can go back on an order once given... If
my voice, the voice of one who was ever friendly to you in the human
principle of his being -- fails to reach you as it has often before, then
our separation in the present and for all times to come -- becomes
unavoidable. It pains me for you, whose heart I read so well -- every
protest and doubt of your purely intellectual nature, of your cold Western
reason -- notwithstanding"""
So it seems, Sinnett was never meant to be a chela, so he didnt stand for
chelaship either. And discontinuation of comminucation by the letters was
not about "eating habits" but Sinnets beliefs??? What did he so wrong?
Then on ML#48:
"""she is delivering herself of actual, incontrovertible facts. And why?
Because both Maitland and herself as well as their circle -- are strict
vegetarians, while S.M. is a flesh-eater and a wine and liquor drinker.
Never will the Spiritualists find reliable, trustworthy mediums and Seers
(not even to a degree) so long as the latter and their "circle" will
saturate themselves with animal blood, and the millions of infusoria of
the fermented fluids. Since my return I found it impossible for me to
breathe -- even in the atmosphere of the Headquarters! M. had to
interfere, and to force the whole household to give up meat; and they
had, all of them, to be purified and thoroughly cleansed with various
disinfecting drugs before I could even help myself to my letters. And
I am not, as you may imagine, half as sensitive to the loathsome
emanations as a tolerably respectable disembodied shell would be,
-- leaving out of question a real PRESENCE, though but a "projecting"
one. In a year or so, perchance earlier, I may find myself hardened
again. At present I find it impossible -- do what I may."""
I've found Them being quite clear on that subject, IF you are called
for chelaship and even further for a chela. But then, i still can
understand eating meat on rare occasions, as Blavatsky an Olcott may
have on their later life.
Our body is changing all the time, most of the cells are changed in
some months and years. Damodar says it takes seven years to make a new
body and chelaship is meant for that purpose only. But physical constitution
is not changed by eating and outer habits only, but more importantly what
we think and feel. It is interesting to find, that even if our cells are
changed, we still think we are same personality.
When i searched for scientific explanation and confirmation, i came to this:
As someone repeated words of Jesus, its not about what we eat, but what we
"talk", think and feel so to speak. And thats why im interested of
qualifications of chelaship. I think that questions comes inevitably, if we
dont want to be only speculative scientists on occult field. Not to say, it
is unworth to speculate things like these. Thought precedes action, or should
So the transmutation of the body is needed. But why should one aim to that?
Do we need Masters and their school to help us, aren't we a part of the Unity
including all the knowledge to reach them by ourselves?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Frank Reitemeyer" <dzyan@...> wrote:
> Why should a Master not speak with people like Sinnett if they wish?
> They never planned to make a chela out of him, did they?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MKR
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 7:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: 7-years test for discipleship
> I also recall a statement in ML that the physical impediments such as meat,
> alcohol etc are more easy to deal with than beliefs and superstitions. There
> is also statement that AP Sinnett had no beliefs so it was easy to
> communicate with him theosophicals ideas. I think, it is wrong to just zero
> in on one aspect ignoring all others. I am yet to see an individual who got
> enlightened by giving up, meat, alcohol, sex, money, etc. etc. while giving
> them up may simplify lives.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application