There are a number of early traditions, and quite a few more that followed over the years. I wonder if it is going to be necessary to chart those out and difine their distictions at some point in time. We are likely going to have some differing views in our posts, which may be confusing to newcomers, when its not explained that there will be differing "takes" or points of view. All may still be following the theosophical view, but will take a slant based on the tradition followed. I presume this board, must by necessity, allow for all traditions for it to serve a community.

I try to allow for other views and yet have my personal preferrences. I can't always follow one school of thought either.

Further, so much of what we conclude is based on the teachings and followings of these traditions. Yet, they were sourced by earlier teachings and schools of thought, which much also be allowed, I surmise. It would be great if these could somehow be well represented too, but I imagine available literature will always be a problem there.

It always concerns me that we have to rely on the written word. It has the affect of Dogma simply because it is written. Being closer to the subject matter will, I imagine, always be a dream of the Theosophist. Are there the Chelas and Masters still in known existence who are providing some direct influence, insight, instruction or guidance so our materials and schools of thought can be validated and tuned? Or, are we constrined to a belief system sans the experience?

Christian

In the TS Adyar it is said that with the disastrous way the last claims about Mahatmas and Chelas and initiations went (the whole history surrounding Krishnamurti) any chelas currently in the TS are likely keeping their mouths firmly shut.
There are always going to be people who feel that their specific work is 'inspired' by the Mahatmas - but even in Blavatsky's day - who knew for certain? It's highly unlikely that materialisations and stuff like that will be given as proof - Blavatsky got into soo much trouble over that. Also, the breach has been opened: there is more of an ear now for different views of reality then there was in Blavatsky's time.
So - certainty is only going to come to the individual. Nobody expects public announcements.
That said: not only Besant and Leadbeater, but de Purucker too claimed to be a messenger of the masters. So who knows what the current leader of the Pasadena TS says privately? I certainly don't, though Nick (or Nicholas - I get them mixed up, unfortunately - wish they would append their last names to their screen names) may.

KH,

You had a good suggestion about the names. (Wouldn't you know it, the two most active people on this Forum have the same first name....)

I seem to be known by the name "Nick the Pilot" in Theosophical circles (again, in order to disintguish myself from Ncholas), so I have chosen to use that username.

It is a fascinating that we have to worry about who said what, who got what from where, etc. I suppose it is foolish of me to hope that we can talk about Theosophical concepts, and not worry about who is who.

However, there is another side to the issue. We cannot believe every Tom, Dick, and Harry who gets up and claims direct communication with the Absolute. Unfortunately, we must be selective about where our information comes from.

Not foolish at all. I often forget who I am addressing, and focus on giving the most sincere answer I can, putting my importance on "the question" or issue. I sometimes wonderd if I was being rude, answering the question and not the person. But, it just tends to be my way. I think lecturing and working in groups may contribute to this way. How fortunate for me that it might actually be a desirable trait in this forum.

Got any more hopes for us?

Christian

Thanks Kh7

I always found this kind of thing wierd. It comes across more as low-end physical mediumship. But, I guess it worked for a while.

Yes, I am aware. I had found it rather odd that this characteristic of human nature was not already known. I tend to get nervous when everthing revolves around the current point in time. As much as I adore Blavatsky, I have to wonder about her as the "choice," when the Mahatmas found her lacking.

Christian,

You said,

"I have to wonder about her as the "choice," when the Mahatmas found her lacking."

--> The Mahatmas said she was lacking, but she was the best they could do. Actually, I think she did an exellent job. She did a much better job than I could have done. Also, when we look at how well she did, considering her bad health and the way she was attacked often, I think she was a great choice. Could any of us done a better job than Blavatsky? I do not think so.