Hey guys,

There hasn't been much activity in here lately. I thought I would post another question that's been on my mind.

I'm thinking about joining the Theosophical Society one day, it's just that lately I haven't had much time to read about it because I've been preoccupied with school. But I do remember reading in one of the books I read (I believe it was either Esoteric Christianity or The Ancient Wisdom, both by Annie Besant) about Initiations. I am wondering if the Theosophical Society practices initiations in the same style as Freemasonry, Rosicrucians, and many other esoteric groups, or if Theosophical "initiations" mean something different?

Also, I'd kind of like to know what generally happens after someone joins the Theosophical Society. Are there different levels of membership that one must progress through? What kind of study takes place? Is it just a matter of going to meetings and hearing lectures, or is there more to it than that?

Thanks so much. Peace everyone!

- Steven

The TS Pasadena has no initiations or levels of membership that I know of. Write to -tstec@theosociety.org with your questions.

Hi Steve,

The Adyar TS has not initiations either. The word initiation is used in several different ways in different traditions. What Annie Besant refers to as Initiations (and the meaning is the same with most theosophical writers) has little to do with those in Freemasonry or the like. The Initiation in the Theosophical sense is a transcendental process of expansion of our consciousness that marks the entrance to the occult path, and they are conferred by the Adepts only to those who have been accepted as disciples (chelas) and have passed through the period of probation, being now able to undergo such an expansion. It has little to do with the TS either. The opportunity comes to a person after lives of work and spiritual evolution.
Regarding the TS, it encourages the study and work in the Lodges or Branches. That is our training to develop the spiritual skill of being fraternal (which implies unselfishness, sensitiveness, empathy, etc.). We can study at home, but then our study is only intellectual. Being a TS member is also a kind of service: we are in the TS both to learn and to teach, to help other people that are looking for the spiritual path.
The TS, based on freedom of thought, brotherhood, and self-reliance, has no hierarchies, except on the administrative levels. There are no different "degrees" among the members. There exists, however, an Esoteric School of Theosophy (ES) for those TS members who want to follow a more systematic course of training, although there is a lot of freedom there also. We have discussed a bit about the ES elsewhere.
You can read more about all this in A. Besant's book "Initiation The Perfecting of Man" at http://www.anandgholap.net/Initiation_Perf...g_Of_Man-AB.htm

Steven,

Early in the Theosophical Society, a person had to be nominated before they could apply for membership. Also, in the early 1900's, the Adyar organization reportedly had things like passwords and secret handshakes. (I think this was all about trying to imitate the Masons.)

All of that is gone. Today, anyone is welcome to be a member. (I believe this is true of all tradtions within Theosophy.)

In the beginning, the society was trying to figure out how to best serve the members. As the years went by, adjustments were made, and the focus of the society changed. Today, all traditions within Theosophy society focus on Brotherhood, and the society is open to all.

As you may know, the early mission statements of the society did not really mention Brotherhood. Today, Brotherhood is the number one goal of the society. It has taken us a little while to figure out what our priorities are (and dump ideas like secret handshakes), and I think we have finally gotten it right.

We have another thread on the Esoteric Section within the Adyar organization. Let me try to find that link for you.

You said,

"I am wondering if the Theosophical Society practices initiations in the same style as Freemasonry, Rosicrucians, and many other esoteric groups, or if Theosophical "initiations" mean something different?"

--> As Pablo has said, the Theosophical Society does not have any initiations. Theosohical literature is full of references to Initations, but these are all done privately between members of the Brotherhood and their students. (It is important to remember that the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood and the Theosophical Society are completely different.)

"I'd kind of like to know what generally happens after someone joins the Theosophical Society."

--> I know that it is easy to look at organizations like the Masons and Rosicrucians, and wonder if Theosophy is similar to them. It is not. There are no Theosophical clergy members, church buildings, church services, or church rituals. Rather, the Theosophical Society is a society which studies religious and philosophical ideas. The meetings are often study sessions, where the people choose a book to read and discuss. Lectures are another popular Theosophical activity. Many Theosophists also read books in their spare time.

"Are there different levels of membership that one must progress through?"

--> No. Anyone may attend (or lead) a discussion group.

"What kind of study takes place?"

--> The sky is the limit. I have attended study sessions on everything from astronomical theory to out-of-body experiences. Frankly, the topic of a study session is entirely up to the person running the study lesson, and there are no forbidden topics. However, I suppose that if someone ran a study session on a "goofy" topic, no one would show up.

"Is it just a matter of going to meetings and hearing lectures, or is there more to it than that?"

--> That is pretty much it. By the way, I think the Adyar organization also has a Service Society, that does volunteer work, but I believe that is considered to be a separate organization.

Hi all,

Just a couple of clarifications. Nick says:

That custom was current during HPB's time. In the early 1900's the usage of secret signs had already been abandoned. I guess the reason for the passwords and grips was that, at the beggining, the Founders didn't know how much opposition and persecution the TS would have from the Church. After a while, only opposition was there, and they must have realized that that kind of secrecy wasn't necessary.

In the Adyar TS there is the Theosophical Order of Service, founded by Annie Besant, for those who want to do charitable work, besides the study. In India, for example, they helped several villages after the Tsunami donating water purifiers, teaching women different jobs to gain money after the death of their husbands, etc. (I was in those villages and I could see how valuable the work was)

Thank you everyone for your responses. That was quite helpful. Although I'm still not quite sure what happens after one joins the society. Do Theosophists pray, meditate? Do many claim to be clairvoyant or to have seen things which confirm some of the things HPB said? It seems to me that the teachings of HPB go beyond pure theory, for example the nature of the astral and mental planes and beings that live there, and what happens to us after death. I'm still not prepared to just believe these things because someone said so, and I'm not entirely convinced that there is an afterlife at all. Does Theosophy offer some way for people to gain clairvoyant abilities and thereby confirm these teachings for themselves?

I'm also wondering why there are still two different societies, the Pasadena TS and the Adyar TS? I've mentioned this in this forum before, I think. I'm thinking about joining the TS one day, but the problem is that I don't which one. There must be some significant difference between them, or else they would just be one society instead of two. What are your thoughts on the differences between the two?

The Pasadena TS is much smaller, less New Agey and sticks closer to the original teachings of the Founders -- Blavatsky & her gurus.

Study their site and you will get some idea: http://www.theosociety.org/

Adyar is far bigger & richer with a very wide choice of areas of interest & study.

Their site, in USA (I am assuming that is where you live Steven) is:

http://www.theosophical.org/

There also is the ULT, the United Lodge of Theosophists. They are an offshoot of the Pasadena TS and very focused on HPB & Judge's teachings.

http://www.ult.org/

Steven,
The orinial programme might have addressed your intererests and query areas head-on, but that spiritual side of things pertaining to "proofs" and "use and development of psychic ability" has been surpressed in the society's current guidelines. As with you, I had thought otherwise from some of the information about the society, such as this excerpt. It also exists in books, which can add to the confusion:

I wonder if it would set well if I pursued a Spiritualists' Lodge of the Theosophical Society, online, to bring together those likeminded folks who are interested in their psychical development and use, [in difference] to the Hindu philosophy which the Society is currently following? Interesting thought, huh?

Why supressed?

It seems to me that the only thing that would make Theosophy different from dogmatic religions would be if there were a way to verify its teachings for oneself.

Steven,

You said,

"Although I'm still not quite sure what happens after one joins the society."

--> It is does not suddenly cause earth-shattering events to start happening. It makes self-study and going to study sessions easier. It is important to note that a person can take advantage of all of the benefits of being a TS member without becoming a member. (A member might find it easier to borrow books from the Wheaton library by mail if they were a member, although I am not sure about that.)

"Do Theosophists pray, meditate?"

--> I have two answers.

(1) Theosophists do not normally pray or meditate as part of regular Theosophical activities. Theosophical activities are usually study sessions or lectures.

(2) Theosophical literature encourages people to meditate, so there are a lot of people who probably meditate more because of the things they have read in Theosophical literature.

I recently attended a study session at the Ohai Theosophical facility near Los Angeles, California. An informal meditation session was held every morning. However, no one was required to attend.

"Do many claim to be clairvoyant or to have seen things which confirm some of the things HPB said?"

--> No. One of the biggest problems we have is that we can not verify the things that HPB said. Most people just listen to the ideas being presented, and decide for themselves if each idea makes sense, and fits into their own personal belief system.

"I'm still not prepared to just believe these things because someone said so...."

--> Good for you! This is exactly the type of thinking that Theosophy encourages. Theosophy encourages you to think for yourself, and not believe anything in a dogmatic way.

"...I'm not entirely convinced that there is an afterlife at all."

--> Theosophy encourages you to increase your critical-thinking skills rather than accept things dogmatically (unlike the major religions of the world). The more we encourage you to look at such ideas critically, the more we have done our job, even if it causes you to move away from Theosophy as a result. (What other major philosophy can make such a wonderful statement...?)

"Does Theosophy offer some way for people to gain clairvoyant abilities and thereby confirm these teachings for themselves?"

--> No. There is a great deal of interest in psychic phenomina in the world today. However, Theosophy encourages people to put their "hankering" for psychic abilites aside. Instead, Theosophy encourages us to spend our time and energy on something more important — accelerating our progress along the Path to Enlightenment.

"I'm also wondering why there are still two different societies, the Pasadena TS and the Adyar TS?"

--> I have thought about this a great deal the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that it was just a political power struggle. I can now see that these political power struggles are normal, and occur in every religious organization down the centuries. Such schizms are a normal part of human behavior. I now realize that we should expect schizms in any organization that contains humans as members. Just take a look at the Pasadena TS. It was formed by a schizm, but then suffered its own schizm within a short time.

"I'm thinking about joining the TS one day, but the problem is that I don't which one."

--> I think a lot of it depends on which groups you have in your area, and which ones are more dynamic. Where do you live? Attend some meetings within different groups in your area. You can do this for years, before you make any kind of committment. Take as long as you like, to decide which one feels more comfortable for you. Also, I think the most important factor is that you were (in my opinion) probably a Theosophist member in a previous lifetime. I think you merely have to pick up on which organization you used to be a member of, and then you will naturally gravitate in that direction. I just feel more comfortable with the Adyar organization, while Nicholas just feels more comfortable with the Pasadena organization. You just have to find out which one is more comfortable for you.

"There must be some significant difference between them, or else they would just be one society instead of two."

--> As I have already said, I disagee. Take a look at Nichiren vs. SGI, Jodoshu vs. Jodoshinsu, Shingon vs. Tendai (all schizms within Japanese Buddhism.) I see all of these schizms as purely political. Theosophy is no different.

Steven,

I agree, and understand. As well, I follow the original scheme. Nick has already addressed your question here, and indicated the reasons why:

I think there are those who do not have choice. Their psychical constitution is ready to express itself, and it will, regardless of what we may do to suppress it. I've tried time and again in the past to suppress any psychic potential but the world flat out refuses to let that choice dominate. In some synchronistic way, in this and some other areas too, no matter what door one chooses, path, twists and turns that ensue will bring one back to this one door that says "Use the Force Luke." There just is no way around it. I think this must happen to others who too are drawn to those areas and have a natural ability that expresses itself naturally.

The Society has switched directions based on issues and difficulties that ensued from events drawn into question with the society’s leaders. In so doing, they seemed to make a huge shift over to the Hindu approach, which is itself a religion and belief that has not held true to its original course; according to H.P.B. And, there can be no doubt that Blavatsky herself was a multiplicity of characters; real, imagined, connected with, influencing, overshadowing and possessing all at different times. Her voice (that is, the things she said) would and did change depending on where the influence was coming from. Even Masters conflicted with Masters; compare ISIS to the S.D. on reincarnation to see this self-evidently, or H.P.B.’s and Olcott’s early lectures in India, compared to their latter stance. Or Olcott’s affirmation of just this fact in his diary. From beginning to end, though, she expressed herself through a countless array of psychic abilities. As the iconic teacher, her pattern of methods will always resonate with those of similar abilities. Those without such will find it easier to follow some derived, agreed-upon safer "mode" of spiritual attainment. That it is simply one borrowed from H.P.B's bag of approved belief systems does not escape notice.

I find it interesting that H.P.B did not become a Hindu or a Buddhist.

To someone with certain abilities beyond the normal, something else will not escape notice. Odd it will seem that with the millions upon millions of Hindus, perhaps billions, why was not one of THEM used as the vehicle for the Masters' messages. They would have eons of learned philosophy behind them. They could learn English just as easily as H.P.B. could learn the Indian language, or Ceylon, or Tibetan. THEY would not have H.P.B.s proclivity to use Elementals, and indulge in precipitations or use frowned upon psychic skills, as these were shunned by them (the current Theosophical belief.) Out of those infinite numbers, there had to be thousands upon thousands with H.P.B.s ability; after all, she and Olcott went there to see, experience and be among those so skilled. Potential teachers existed by the thousands to my logic, or that of any one psychically skilled I would surmise.

As well, why did not the Masters simply do the work themselves? They convey it was done repeatedly in the past, and will continue thusly unto this day, SO, why H.P.B. to begin with. They did it themselves on numerous occasions when it served to provide a dramatic effect, as reported in all the early writings of the doings of H.P.B. There is nothing about her as a "vehicle" that was incomparable according to the older Theosophical texts (other than by totally unsubstantiated inference,) nor did she have any great experience or educational accomplishment to her credit. She simply "lent" herself in a trance-mediumship like manner, albeit holding back some control, as was common in her day. That she could work on the lowest Astral Planes has always been written as the easiest of accomplishments, but ironically, virtually any medium of the modern age has no interest in sub-planes below the 4th, perhaps the 3rd Astral. To “command” lower life forms is a gamble that one cannot win at forever. Nor, is trans-mediumship of Blavatsky’s type approved up in this day as it is known to both age a person quite abnormally, and induce early illness due to the “drain” of our aetheric energy/aetheric aura (aetheric body), also known for this reason as our “Health Aura.”

Since H.P.B. claims herself over and over again, that she got EVERYTHING from her Higher self (something not greater than the Masters,) the Akashic records - available to clairvoyants in general, from arbitrary learned spirits, from Elementals, from Masters of varying grades and stations, ... BY VIRTUE OF HER STEPPING ASIDE, ... I cannot determine why she would be the only choice in light of the thousands of likely better more amenable Hindu mediums, or ANY trance medium. She specifically claims no uniqueness, and the Mahatmas state nothing specific. All that she explains she did, her receptivity and her stepping aside, is something that thousands of others of the Hindu sect could have provided, or another medium of the trance order from any other place, ... if we are to accept her explanation and the Mahatmas.

So, given that she simply expressed her natural psychic nature, and accomplished such great things, great proofs that appeal to Theosophists, ... I find an argument against her/the U.K. Theosophical Society's early charter of exploring and developing one's abilities, simply ODD. It doesn't seem sensible; it seems "protective," trying to avoid potential fraud. Not the most truthful means.

But, the current general position is what it is. My take is that it is a “protective” stance. To those who truly have psychic abilities, they will not likely be able to avoid their expression if they have a natural gift. The undeveloped would be better served not to explore development; it requires too great a commitment.

Your question was, “Why suppressed?” I believe this answers that.



Christian

I do not have any unusual 'psychic' abilities. I do not wish for them. I am far more concerned with transcending my lower nature, i.e. changing thought patterns, motivations, learning how to work more fully from my higher will.

"Lord (higher Self), Make me an instrument of thy peace.."

However, I believe that if they were necessary for my 'destiny', they would develop along with the intuitions, etc. that I AM trying to develop.

Christian, there is a very good reason for your abilities, I'm sure. Your challenge is to discover that purpose.

Namaste

Christian,

One reason the Lodge chose HPB over any Hindu medium is that their focus was on the Occident and they required a Western person to be the Messenger. There is some old European karma going back to the time when the European Mystery Schools self-destructed around 200 bce (or ce, I forget). The Eastern Lodge began helping the West, once a century, since that time.

Also HPB, Olcott, Leadbeater, Hartmann et al took refuge in the Triple Jewel & became Buddhists in 1880 in Ceylon.

I have always found it interesting that HPB used 'phenomena' to attract attention to herself and her theosophy, and then, when the interest was aroused, she (and her Masters) denounced that interest. She was walking a fine line.

I remember in the Letters, KH was admonishing APS and AOH for wanting to create a 'College of Occultism'. (Don't recall exactly which letter).

Sinnett's first book 'Occult World' focused on the 'phenomena', and then 'Esoteric Buddhism' moved away from the 'phenomena' and towards the teachings. Same idea - Get the public interested with the 'phenomena', then teach them the science.

Remember that in the late 1800's, communication between England (and the rest of the West) and British colonial India took months, and the British public was facinated with stories of fakirs, snake charmers, beds of nails, etc. It was exotic and sexy. 'Occult World' fit right in..

Hi Steven,

I don't think the cause is a political struggle. Right now, it’s mainly an ideological one. In the Pasadena TS they don’t accept the teachings of Annie Besant, Leadbeater, etc. They consider Theosophy is what HPB and the Masters said, and the Pasadena leaders worked mainly along those lines.
In the Adyar TS the concept of what Theosophy is is more open and therefore the study is usually wider. You will find people studying HPB, Besant, Leadbeater, Krishnamurti, etc., but at the same time you can find people studying Alice Bailey, Chopra or that kind of new age stuff. Each TS Branch and member is free to choose his study, although most of theosophical leaders encourage the study of Theosophy and the serious spiritual traditions (and not new age-like things). Because of that, the Adyar TS is different in each country. In Argentina, for example, most of members and branches study only theosophical authors. It seems to me that in US there are more “New Agey” studies, but it all depends on the local branch.

Yes. It provides a method of confirming the teachings. But that method is a spiritual, not a psychic one, since the fundamental theosophical teachings that will produce an inner transformation are to be found in a spiritual state of Divine Wisdom or Theos-Sophia.
There were several clairvoyant theosophical leaders (Besant, Leadbeater, Geoffrey Hodson, and in the US we have Dora Kunz, among others) in the Adyar TS. If it happens that somebody is clairvoyant that’s perfectly right. But the TS doesn’t encourage the development of those senses that are, after all, material senses belonging to the personal self. The TS encourages the development of the Spiritual Man in us, even if that training may take lives. The psychic realm and abilities may be a major cause of distraction in your spiritual development. Spiritual people with psychic abilities know how to use them and go beyond them. Less mature souls when develop psychic abilities usually get lost in the many fascinations of the psychic realm (see the First Fragment of The Voice of the Silence, when HPB speaks about the Second Hall).
The “theosophical path” (if we can say that) is to work with the higher (spiritual) chakras, senses, powers or siddhis, tattwas, etc, and after having awakened them, the lower (psychic) will naturally develop without having a negative impact on the aspirant.
There is a lot of theosophical literature with suggestions to further the evolution of the Spiritual Man. I published in the article “Damodar and the Preparation for the Occult Path” some aspects of that training. You can find it in my website http://pasender.tripod.com
This theosophical path is very much in tune with the path of Jñana Yoga, where most of their yogis don’t develop psychic powers at all.

Hi ChristianMyst,

You say,

If you read HPB's words about this subject, you will see that not only she was not a medium, but she was the opposite to that. That she was a "channel", or medium, or the like, is superficial conclusion. As she expressed, if you see the Principles that are acting in both cases, you will see the medium's higher Principles paralyzed, the medium being in a passive state, while in the case of an occultist it is just the opposite, only his/her lower Principles are paralyzed while working through his higher nature. So, from an occult point of view, it is not a mere small matter of "holding back some control"...
She said clearly that mediumnistic practice (and channeling would be in the same line) is just the opposite to the occult path.

Psychic senses would pertain to the Astral and Mental Plane; this latter is typically the highest attainment any Man will have no matter how transcendent.

Neither are of the lower physical plane, but all, psychical or transformative, are indeed of the Personal Self. Anything that current Man develops, whether intuitively, transcendently, inner transformative, WILL be of the Personal Self. So, what is the point of the TS direction?

Man is Man, Man will be Man [regardless] of his approach to spirituality. What he can obtain is limited in this Round. He will inherently develop his spiritually from his lowest physical faculties to those higher Astral psychical ones, and those Mental Plane senses almost out of his reach. Again, regardless, they will always be of the personal self in [this] round.

If Man reaches UPWARDS, beyond the physical to his psychical, it is an improvement. This step [cannot] be skipped, regardless of how many nice words are used to glorify the transformative. If after a lifetime(s) of endeavor, one achieves the transformative state suggested in the prior post, than at sometime [BEFORE] that moment, even if it is right up to it, the psychical Astral state must be attained. We will not be able to skip a step on the ladder. We are victims of a balanced state in the physical body, and through our series of successive bodies. We may climb ever higher along our golden thread, and ponder each pearl of a body, in H.P.B’s terminology, but indeed, each such pearl [IS] a step as well as a body, and we must climb through the gradients of energy, thereby, transcending the Astral. In so doing, we [REGAIN] our natural sensory faculties for that Plane, which we only here in the physical want to consider “unnatural,” as they are not as functional as physical touch, sound, feeling and sight.

As we climb the ladder, our constitution changes to allow-for and accept, as well as being receptive to and conditioned for, those higher and finer energies. We will traverse the gradients and at some point perhaps find ourselves somewhere in the Higher Mental Plane, and the faculties we require for that place, that state, will TOO, be remembered; this would be the alleged transformative stage.

So, to recap: If we know we have to reach higher, and we find that we may, just may, be able to prove to ourselves our psychical abilities, then we will accomplish “improvement” that will in turn allow us to take the next step; which is not now so far away (relatively.) We should naturally take to this too, as we are already very familiar with the psychical as we have already lived in the Astral Plane. It can be something we reduce to common every-day ability in this reality, with the now commonplace/widespread/worldwide spiritual goal of obtain perception and functionality in the [now] more obtainable Mental Plane; then the Buddhic --- the last possible stop for us.


As pertains the earlier argument, these are things we have heard repeatedly, [SINCE] the society has changed direction, after the conflagration, but it was not the initial intent whatsoever. As with Christianity, we have changed the school of thought to fit the current requirement; in this case, the Society wanted to insure it stayed afloat/in existence, so distanced itself from the bad publicity. Not complaining here, but noticing this has always been “Man’s” way of handling difficult situations; we just change the game.

It is not logical that the Mahatmas could not, would not, did not see the very probable eventuality of the Society that they evidently played a very active hand in forming. It makes no sense―if they have their “advanced” far-sighted fingers on the “pulse” of our conscious development. There should have been a plan and means for rectifying the inevitable bad lighting that was shed on the Society as regards its phenomena, …and general and standard execution of it, …as well as expectation of it. As Hindu’s, Tibetans et’al of “the East,” Jewels of civilization, they know ever so well―in fact, they could not have not known―what the public reactions to them would be, …and the motives of interest in the society. They would as well understand [ALL] the probable allegations that would ensue, as it would have been “a pattern” often repeated in their own locale’s history. Such must be the case, since this is what is/was cited as grounds for the inner transformation of Pablo’s reply. “They Know.” So why the failed outcome, and why the change in “Divine and Perfect” direction of their earlier years?

It would not/could not be logical that they would lead the world down a preverbal path―including H.P.B. and her co-founders―and the many loyal and enthusiastic early members, which would represent our greatest numbers and growth by the way, … only to pull the rug out from under them, [knowingly and deliberately] JUST SO they could introduce justification for an inner transformational argument, … as I gather some ones here are suggesting.

The “integrity” in this approach is flawed on many levels. Yet, laughingly, truth never did seem to be of great concern for the framers of our Theosophy if we can use H.P.B.’s countless examples of misleading stories and outright lying to those she encountered. Such is documented fact, what can I say? Conflicts in the Masters’ messages are documented fact viz. Olcott’s diary too.

There is just something about all of this does not ring proper, correct, truthful, intended, envisioned, purposeful to a reasoning mind. Some posters draw mention of the periodicity of the Mahatmas’ intervention and interaction with civilization, of which this whole scenario is a part. I must point out, though at this juncture, that any inference that it is solely for the benefit of the “Western” mind is uncomfortably arrogant to the rational mind. This [TOO] should indicate knowledge of how the mind of Man works and what will happen under set circumstances. Like history, Man repeats himself.

Therefore, I am finding this approach to sounding out “the behind the scenes thinking of the Mahatmas” as too remiss. And, the earlier approach as to the formation of a society which propounded psychic development and the execution of phenomena, WITHOUT a backup support plan for bringing the Society out “on top” as ill advised; read [NOT] informed. Ergo, without forethought. This would be an incongruence in the logic of there being Mahatmas, in the first place.

Collectively, I can repeat, this does not come across as sensible. SOMETHING within this “great story” (as it occurred over time) is [not] ringing true. Something is wrong or incorrect, something is remiss, something [could not] be foreseen, interference could not be anticipated, the spiritual Master messages were gotten all wrong, perhaps the Masters were mere psychic influencers and not beings of a much Higher Plane performing their [routine] interdiction, perhaps the Society formers and early members were not truthful, or overstated/exaggerated their “influence,” and manufactured the phenomena, or perhaps these same may [not] have been truly getting influence from Masters, but something of the feared Elemental realm. SOMETHING… something is not right. It just doesn’t work out logically. It only makes sense with a double dose of “faith,” which theosophically should not be necessary.

Logic would say that the earliest influence and drive should be the most pure, untainted, significant, meaningful and foundational. Indeed, THAT is exactly the “stuff” upon which the early society was conceived, and [supposedly] with the nudging of the Masters upon H.P.B..

Why then did H.P.B. deliberately mislead people, lie to them about herself, and what she was doing phenomenally? She did this repeatedly. Even Olcott had to go through sometimes 2 or 3 renditions of her “stories” before he determined he got the truthful explanation, each one being so different. There is too much of a paper trail where she states she was this age or another, or another still; almost all statements untrue. “Whence” the phenomena came from was represented in a whole succession of misstatements, avoidances, confusions, or outright untruths―such, even we Theosophists state.

This is the person [sanctioned] by the Masters, supposedly, as the “very best” the West had to offer; although, I have seen no significant explanation with this forum or in any literary work that exemplifies her. The argument that she was a “Westerner” does not play off of logic well either, as nothing of her “Western-ness” seems to have made a difference of consequence; I should think quite the contrary. When the West became aware of the sages, magis, yogi’s, Masters of the East, et’al they were every bit as willing to seek them out and follow their teachings―even through to this day. So, the “West” argument is also lacking a substance that is obviously indispensable. Where is it? What is it? Why is it not truly self-evident?

So, when we add H.P.B. to the equation, which we seem to think as a premeditated intent to stimulate a Higher level of spirituality in the West, from Masters who do this [all the time,] periodically on schedule if I understand the several references to such, something is STILL not right. Where is the “Right” behind this decision, since it is not Theosophy that has persevered, but rather, other alternatives to spirituality that have overtaken it. There is nothing logical and premeditated in this outcome, especially since the Theosphists, as already indicated in earlier posts, would take difference to the New Agers―who simply followed an approach that was “sensible” to them.

When we apply “Occams’ Razor,” which is rational if not requisite in such a complex matter containing facts with which we have no certainty, we have to look for the simplest answers. To me, those little answers, which may ultimately lead to the greater truth, would include:
. The Masters of H.P.B.’s, Olcotts, Sinnet’s and others’ early influence, WERE NOT those we now conceive of has elevated consciousness that is “homed” on some considerably Higher plane, but rather, something perhaps more akin to the upper Astral.

. And, given the conflicts that are known, if there are indeed such Higher Masters, perhaps they only came into true “connection” AFTER this rolling stone called H.P.B. and her Theosophical machine and its attentive Society created a “high” enough vibration to attract them.

. Indeed, since we know factually, beyond a shadow of a doubt as far as Theosophical records go, that H.P.B. [DID] actually commune with “Elementals,” repeatedly; in fact over and over again, right up to the end.

. We have to make the presumption that she availed herself to Astral influence of the “lowest” kind. Her frequency at this, as well as her other entourage of “characters” whom she herself claims [gave] or dictated information to her, demonstrated over and over again, early on, that her affinity was with a lower vibration of energy than any Master could relate to. This fact is that she communed with the Astral. She may have connected to the lower Mental, but her works, being the “proofs,” are assailed by far too many; and by far too many who [should] by substantiating her.

. The Razor would have to conclude her abilities were “connectivity at the lower Astral,” as would be typical of mediumship of its day. They all had a “physical” component.

. That “personas” were well defined in Theosophical literature as the connections of H.P.B., and certainly with most if not all of the other mediums of the day, what is there to allow us to take a leap of faith to conclude she had an exalted connection of several magnitudes greater, to “Masters.?”

. ALL of her phenomena were “physical”. All literature and example through to this day says that lower Astral entity, to include sorcerers, are almost certainly to be involved in that physical caliber of display; in fact, Theosophy itself says it is necessary.

. The recorded proofs are at the complete opposite extreme to what proofs of Masters would represent. Why have only physical, albeit lower, proofs been offered of the Masters? If mediumship is a High order reflects the Mental Plane or higher, and not the Astral, then there should be some high order proof. In the modern age, higher mediumship is demonstrated in channels of messages the stand up to scrutiny. These do not exist in this case. Even Bailey’s Tibetan messages, when analyzed, are considered “too Christianized” to be what they purport. It is [not logical] that the Masters cannot prove themselves. It is already self-evident that they set out to do this at one time.

. If physical mediumship must be the only acceptable proofs, then it is only logical that said Masters must prove their existence or their message, physically, themselves, without the involvement of human intervention; as such will only result as an excuse and be cause for fault. Some minor miracle must be needed to convince the spiritually inclined, who are not YET inclined to take the leaps of faith that current Theosophists deems necessary.

ChristianMyst

P

With all due respect, wouldn't this point be moot? There is so much overwhelming proof, including her [OWN] writing to family that states she "steps aside" and lets other consciousness use her body. She does this in articles, as well. What is the point of debating the nuances you suggest when she is herself emphatic. In support, her colleagues have the same story. When she answers directly in her own words, this very question in the affirmative, … that she was both overshadowed, and stepped out of her body to allow another to use it, … there is NO question to debate.

At least, not to my sense of logic. I'm not opposed to your argument, just that anyone can always say, "But NOT in this case." In any court of law, your argument or point can carry no weight. What other leeway would or could be expected here, where we must answer to the highest standards?

ChristianMyst

Steven,

:lol: I think things are about to change.

Christian.

In response to Jon K.

>> I do not have any unusual 'psychic' abilities.
Fine.

>> I do not wish for them.
Fine.

>> I am far more concerned with transcending my lower nature, i.e. changing thought patterns, motivations, learning how to work more fully from my higher will.
Fine.

>> "Lord (higher Self), Make me an instrument of thy peace.."
Is this Higher Self of yours the Lord in the Christian sense, or are you conveying you are God in your Universe, ... or???

>> However, I believe that if they were necessary for my 'destiny', they would develop along with the intuitions, etc. that I AM trying to develop.
Agreed. And, I would contend that this is [exactly] what is happening with those who naturally find they have them. I never looked for them, and in fact tried to hide and surpress them most of my life. I hear this from others as well. Thus, as you allude, perhaps destiny requires us to exhibit these.

>> Christian, there is a very good reason for your abilities, I'm sure. Your challenge is to discover that purpose.
Since I have always used them to provide insight into someone's self, I gather it must be related to this.

Often, something like this will go down. Someone comes in and sits down. Within the first few seconds, literally, I will have visual evidence of something and say, "You were brought up Christian and struggled with your faith. You began searching through all systems and happened upon Buddhism, which is your current stop." You have Buddhism symbols all around you. They will say. "Yes, exactly. And I just bought this Tibetan prayer wheel." I will immediately follow, you have been calling on someone, and in fact, you have yoganananda standing behind you. "Yes, yes, they will say. I call out to him daily and asked that he be here." I will tell them they are doing this and this and that, .. and they will agree. I will show that these are traits of yoganananda , who is currently influencing you. This will make perfect sense to them, and they can validate the traits. I will tell them that they are here because they are having all these strange experiences and they want to know what they mean, and why yoganananda has such a draw for them. "Yes," they will respond. And I will tell them, great, then lets begin.

And so it goes, ... and I continue from this lead-in to obtain the insight they require since I have the influence of yoganananda right there in front of us, visually.

Now, I picked yoganananda for a reason. This example, being true and representative, was at a time when I had no idea at all of who yoganananda was. And, this happens very often. I often have to start describing the person and then begin getting the name, letter by letter. The greatest influence on a person comes in right away with some other clues, usually visual.

And this is exactly why a person is coming to some event I am at. This is funny too. Many if not most say they circle the events and decide I am the one who will deliver for them. Very common. So, they too feel a nudge from their guide, angelic influence, Higher self, passed relative or whatever, to use a particular medium.

The end result is the right message is delivered by the right medium at the right time and with the requisite right proofs that they themselves establish are given. Since ultimately the result is they receive some valuable insight, and insight that they are seeking, I surmise this must be my purpose in exhibiting these skills.

I can’t speak for everyone with similar skill. Each may have their own purpose.

Christian Myst

Just for the record, I am not taking any stance against H.P.B. or the Theosophical Society, or the current society's approach. But I do point out the very questions I am trying to understand.

Christian

Haha, seriously. This thread has exploded. I wasn't expecting this.

And frankly I have to admit that I can't follow some of what is being said here, because I don't know much about HPB and the other founders and what they wrote. ChristianMyst, I've gathered from your last few posts that you don't believe her teachings can be considered genuine. I've never read anything written by her, because lately I haven't had time to read much of anything. But if she contradicts herself the way you say, then yes you must be right.

I've also seen several people here mention that the Society has "changed directions". Can someone explain what this means? I'm not that familiar with the history of Theosophy and I don't understand this "change of direction".

Also, if it's true that the modern Theosophical Society discourages its members from developing their psychic faculties, isn't this in direct conflict with the Society's 3rd object: "To investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in humanity"?

It seems like "powers latent in humanity" would include the "psychic" faculties that I'm talking about.

Christian,

You have characterized HPB as having deliberately mislead people, and lied to them about herself. Feel free to support your claim. Otherwise, your post will be considered unacceptable and similar statements will not be allowed in the future.

The Forum Guidelines have been updated and clarified to show that such a statement, as it stands, is not allowed anymore. This Forum is for the free and unfettered discussion of Theosophical people, ideas, and teachers. However, slander will not be allowed.

This Forum is not going to become a free-for-all, no-holds-barred place for discussion, which is what has occured on other places on the Internet. A certain amount of civility is required to discuss the higher ideals of Theosophy, and that civility is going to be maintained here.

Hi everybody!

The idea that Theosophy encourages psychic development, while at the same time discouraging the teaching of psychic development during Theosophical meetings is an important topic that needs to be addressed.

In the beginning, HPB was quite a spiritualist, and provided many examples of psychic phenomina. She was more than willing to provide such demonstrations to people who wanted to see them. However, the Mahatmas let her know that they did not want the future Theosophical Society to be an organization that provided psychic experiences, seances, etc. The Mahatmas wanted a significant change from HPB as to what she was telling the world what was important for our spiritual development, and she was only too happy to make the change that they were asking for. As a matter of fact, she made the change so quickly and unexpectedly, that she alienated a lot of spiritualists who are the very people HPB wanted to talk with.

The Mahatmas wanted first and formost a Society that provided information to us that helps us accelerate our progress (1) towards Brotherhood, and (2) towards Enlightenment. It was felt that a Society that emphasized psychic displays would distract everyone from the two goals mentioned above. As a matter of fact, the Mahatmas mentioned that some people join the Theosophical Society specifically for the purpose of learning how to become psychic — the Mahatmas want these people to know that they are joining the Society for the wrong reason.

The Mahatmas also pointed out that there are dangers from improperly guided psychic development. They pointed out how improperly trained psychics can actually do more harm than good. Theosophy acknowledges that there are many very good psychics in the world today. Indeed, Theosophy and good psychics have the very same goal in mind. I would like to add that I have received very good advice from good psychics over the years. There is a source of information out there that we non-psychics cannot access, a source that good psychics can access, and it is helpful when they access it for us. I have also seen bad psychics, who are probably doing more bad than good. The Mahmatmas are trying to show us that such bad psychics are a bad idea, and that Theosophy should have nothing to do with bad psychics.

Therefore, it comes down to two key issues.

(1)

Theosophy encourages good psychic development, which is exactly what the Third Object of the Society states. There are some very good psychics out there, and the Theosophy supports the work they do. On the other hand, the Theosophy discourges psychic readings that spread wrong information.

(2)

There is a danger that the Theosophical Society could become a place which specializes in providing psychic demonstrations. There is a huge interest in psychic phenomina in the world today. It would be very easy for the Society to turn into this, and this is exactly the thing that the Mahatmas do not want to Society to turn into. The need to emphasize Brotherhood and Enlightenment (and the need to not let anything distract us from these two goals) forces us to stop the displaying of psychic phenomina during Theosophical meetings.

This is the same as the ban on political activity during Theosophical meetings. Does this mean that Theosophists are not expected to have political opinions? Certainly not. On the contrary, it is expected that people will have an increase in political awarenes and activity as a result of their Theosophical studies. They just cannot pursue their political awakenings during Theosophical meetings. Once a Theosophical meeting is over, the members are encouraged to go out into the world and make their political opinions known.

In the broad sense, there is no 'god' separate from me. Yet I am individualized. A most glorious paradox. St. Francis was certainly referring to the separate Christian God. However, I don't believe Jesus was referring to a separate God when he referred to his Father in Heaven. Just my take..

I believe that your own higher self is (or may as well be) God - the only guru you really need. Your lower self is an interface, so to speak, an imperfect projection of this higher self, interacting with other projections of the same 'God'. Atman is Brahman.

So the answer to your question, no and yes, I AM God in my universe, and so are you. The Christian God is a misunderstanding of this teaching.

btw, god is just a word, a symbol for ??

Nick,

Thank you, that explanation was helpful. I think now I understand the society's approach to psychic senses.

But why did you mention "Mahatmas"? You speak of them as though it were a fact that 1) they exist, and 2) they said what Blavatsky said they said. How do we know that? Do most Theosophists believe in Mahatmas? If these Mahatmas are at the foundation of Theosophy, then that makes Theosophy seem much like a revealed religion which is not unlike any other religion that has a prophet who claims to carry a message from the spiritual world.

It seems to me that if the Theosophical Society wants to be different, it can't have an assumed belief in these Mahatmas as its foundation.

Jon,

"In the broad sense, there is no 'god' separate from me. Yet I am individualized. A most glorious paradox."

--> As a matter of fact, this is what Buddha was talking about when he said there is no Atman (no soul), in the sense of an Atman which is separate from everything around it. Yes, we are individualized but we are not separate, which is quite a paradox. We are told that, at the highest levels, all separateness disappears.

"St. Francis was certainly referring to the separate Christian God. However, I don't believe Jesus was referring to a separate God when he referred to his Father in Heaven. Just my take.."

--> There are two parts to the answer to this question.

(1)

HPB said Our Father is our Atman. If anyone is interested, I can try to find that quote for them.

(2)

HPB says there is a male Deity, which consists of the entire universe. Universes come and go, which is another way of saying the Son (of the Trinity) has appeared, will disappear, then reappear, on and on, in a seemingly endless cycle. (Christianity only deals with the appearance of this universe, while Theosophy addresses the entire cycle.)

It is important to note that HPB rejected the idea of a personal God. The idea of a personal God goes very much against Theosophical teachings.

"I believe that your own higher self is (or may as well be) God - the only guru you really need."

--> I see what you are saying. I like what you said a while ago, you only make pledges and promises to your Higher Self.

However, there is another side to the story. Both Masters M and KH take disciples. I can only wonder if we will also pledge ourselves to gurus of the Brotherhood someday, or some other branch of the organization that the male Deity of this universe has caused to appear.

"Atman is Brahman."

--> I look at it a little differently. To me, Atman is a manifestation of Brahman.

"btw, god is just a word, a symbol for ??"

--> ...a symbol for our Atman and the male Deity.

Steven,

You said,

"You speak of them as though it were a fact that 1) they exist, and 2) they said what Blavatsky said they said."

--> I do believe they exist, and that they said what Blavatsky said they said. The Mahatmas are said to be real people, living in human bodies, in a village in Tibet. (The actual location of their village is a secret.)

"How do we know that?"

--> They offer no proof that they exist. This is for several reasons.

(1) As long as we do not have proof that they exist, we can have doubt in our minds as to whether what they taught makes sense. Proving they exist would put more pressure on us that we have to believe what they taught. They would rather the burden of what we believe is placed fully on us. In order to do this, they avoid providing proof that they exist.

(2) The Mahatmas have complained that, if their existence was proven, people would try to find the village in Tibet where they live. It would be a logistics nightmare to keep everyone out.

(3) The Mahatmas have said they do not care if anyone believes in them or not. The only thing that matters is what they teach.

(4) The Mahatmas have said that, if they wish to invite us to join their Brotherhood, they will come find us, we do not have to go find them. Until then, all we can do is join the imperfect organization called the Theosophical Society, which makes their teachings available to everyone. (Membership in the Brotherhood is not open to everyone.)

"Do most Theosophists believe in Mahatmas?"

--> I think so.

"If these Mahatmas are at the foundation of Theosophy, then that makes Theosophy seem much like a revealed religion which is not unlike any other religion that has a prophet who claims to carry a message from the spiritual world."

--> There is another way to look at it. The Mahatmas belong to something called the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood. It has been said that most of the prophets who have started religions of the world are members of this Brotherhood. According to the theory, it is the Brotherhood that regularly sends these prophets into the world to start religions. In this way, Theosophy is not just another religion, it is the source of most organized religions on Earth.

Theosophy is more of a revealed philosophy than a revealed religion. It is a small distinction, but an important one.

The idea that the Mahatmas might start a true religion was discussed in the beginning, and rejected by the Mahatmas. They said the last thing we need is another set of pompous priests standing inside church buildings, spreading dogma. (I definitely agree.)

Theosophy is a set of teachings called the Anciert Wisdom. The Mahatmas are said to guard these teachings, and release small portions of the teachings as the centuries go by. Theosophy is unique in the history of the world, because it is the first direct release of many of these teachings to everyone in the world.

"It seems to me that if the Theosophical Society wants to be different, it can't have an assumed belief in these Mahatmas as its foundation."

--> I have two responses.

(1) True, many people have written Theosophy off as just another religion. We are trying to show that Theosophy is not a religion. It is the study of all religions. More specifically, it is the release of the set of teachings from which most of the world's religions have been created.

(2) I do not see the logic of your statement. An assumed belief in the Mahatmas makes Theosophy into just another religion? I do not think so.

Nick,

Maybe I can clarify what I'm trying to ask. Why believe in Mahatmas at all? Why do you say you believe in them? Where did you get your proof? If you have no proof, why do you believe in something without proof? If I wanted to believe in something without proof, I could arbitrarily choose any religion that makes sense to me. But I don't want to do that. I want my "beliefs" to be based in reality, not in what other people have told me I should believe.

I don't see the logic in any belief system in which the followers have to assume beliefs. I.e. assume that the Mahatmas exist and speak of them as though they are real people, as you are doing. When I first started learning about Theosophy, I thought it was different in that Theosophists weren't asked to believe in anything without proof or without learning methods in which they can confirm things for themselves. Now it seems like Theosophy is just as dogmatic as any other religion, but instead of an illogical, assumed belief in Gods, now we have an illogical, assumed belief in Mahatmas.

I would like to know if other Theosophists think this way?

Also, I would like to say, I'm not trying to be negative or critical here. I'm am genuinely interested in Theosophy. I just want to make sure that the Theosophical Society isn't just a group of people who believe in the writings of HPB and assume the truth of everything she said, just like adherents of every other religion assume the truth of everything their prophets say. I think humankind needs to be moving past that kind of religion. One thing I really like about Buddhism is that it's less dogmatic than most other religions and (as far as I can tell) it doesn't require believing anything without reason or proof. The same might be true of other Eastern religions, I don't know.

Theosophy has taught me...

not to assume anything.
to look for "proof" inside, not 'out there'.

I have said often: The Truth is in no book - it is in your heart. The books, bulletin boards, lectures at the TS, are all pointers, or keys to unlock the Truth inside.

For this Truth, you will need no 'proof'.

As is found on the lintle of Appolo's temple at Delphi: Gnothi seauton: Know Thyself. It is by discovering (or trying to discover) who you are, that you will find the Truth.

Theosophists would have you find out for yourself whether or not the Masters existed.

Namaste

ChristianMyst,

You say

I cannot agree with that, and the general concept of your post. In fact, I think the theosophical method (a method you claim doesn't exist) is just the opposite to the one you suggest.
The personal self, that is, kama-manas as a centre of consciousness, not only can, but must die. An it is possible to reach enlightment withouth having anything to do with psychic powers. This is not only a theosophical concept but it is present in many spiritual traditions (including most of Buddhists schools, several Hindus, and almost every mystic path).
The occult path, on the other hand, works with the higher tattvas and leaves the lower ones and their psychic powers to be worked upon after the aspirant has already awakened the spiritual principles and put them in tune with the universal principles. You can read about that in the esoteric teachings of HPB to the Inner Group.

ChristianMyst,

I think your feeling that "something is not right" within the TS, its method and history, is caused by a misunderstanding. You are probably reading the theosophical literature -I think- from a wrong perspective. Then, you find inconsistencies.
My understanding of what the occult path is makes sense with all those things you question.
As a friend of mine used to say, if we want to play basketball in a tennis court, then we will question about the use of a net, and talk about the necessity of a basket.
Have you ever read HPB's literature sistematically or even the Mahatma Letters? When one reads many different authors at the same time, it is easy to miss the perspective of any particular system of thought. If you didn't, that could be something useful...

The Lord (higher Self) works in mysterious ways..

Steven,

The foundation of the TS is a belief in Universal Brotherhood, not Mahatmas. Many members of the TS do believe they exist, but there is no need for them to so believe. If you are willing to do some research & reading you will find that many flesh & blood people (some who knew nothing about Theosophy) met the flesh & blood Adepts. Here is a little in that line -
http://theosophy-forum.com/index.php?showtopic=577

Christian,

The SOMETHING that is askew is human nature, not an erratic plan by the Masters. The Brotherhood does not take up any beneficent plan for humanity that is fordoomed to failure. In the case of the 19th century Messenger, almost no one in The Brotherhood would volunteer to help because They thought humanity would not respond well or at all. Only M, KH and a few others were willing to make the sacrifice. KH later wrote that it turned out that the majority of the Lodge were wiser - humanity was not ready.

As for the Western focus of the Lodge - that was spelled out by HPB as I wrote. I will find the quotes. They are here - see the first post -

http://theosophy-forum.com/index.php?showtopic=106

Hi all,

I was reading Light on the Path and came across this quotation...

Hi Steve,

There is an epistemological problem here. What are our means of knowledge? What are their limitations? If you want “objective proofs”, that is, something perceived through our physical senses, you have to reduce your universe to the material realm. There is no way of proving spiritual things through “objective means”. If you extend the physical senses developing the astral ones, we are more or less in the same position. You’ll have objective proofs of many things that belong to the astral plane, but that is not the spiritual reality. The same applies to the lower mental plane.
Therefore, the question is: is the “objective evidence” the only valid evidence? Isn’t there any other kind of valid subjective evidence? Even “spiritual seekers” are strongly conditioned by our scientific era, to believe that only objective proofs are valid. But at other times in humanity, the objective evidence was the less valuable of all. See for example Plotino. He said that the only way to perceive the real was through what in the theosophical teachings we call buddhic or intuitive perception.
If you or I don’t develop our spiritual intuition, we are left to beliefs: “I believe the Mahatmas exist” “I believe the Mahatmas don’t exist”. In either case it is a belief, since we cannot prove one or the other.
Now, if we follow the “theosophical training”, we will gradually develop that spiritual faculty. And that intuitive knowledge will be real. Because knowledge based on beliefs is very weak and rigid. Intuitive knowledge is of a completely different sort, unshakable and yet, flexible, soft.
Now, is intuitive knowledge infallible? No more that any other means of knowledge (sensory perception, inference, or authority or belief). But that means can be gradually refined and made more accurate. Study, meditation, service/unselfishness, self-knowledge, are means to develop the intuitive knowledge. That is the theosophical method and path to experience the spiritual realm.

In the Adyar TS there is an official statement called Freedom of Thought that says (I give only an excerpt of it)

There are members that may be dogmatic regarding certain author, but that is their own business. They don’t have any way to impose their beliefs on you. In other TSs you will find more frequently the attitude that what HPB said is the truth.
I don’t even agree in saying that theosophy is a system of thought or philosophy, because theosophy is undefined. And I believe HPB herself didn’t want to put forth a system of thought. Read my article “What is Theosophy” in my website http://pasender.tripod.com/ where you will find many quotations from HPB’s writings about that (I’m sorry to be self-referential but I don’t want to repeat here what I’ve already written in more detail somewhere else).

Christian,

>> You have characterized HPB as having deliberately mislead people, and lied to them about herself.
Feel free to support your claim. Otherwise, your post will be considered unacceptable and similar statements will not be allowed in the future.

Yes I have. In the purpose of answering a post I have indeed made this characterization, but I as well said it was not
my characterization, but rather the Society's, herself's and her contemporaries. I am shocked and dismayed at this approach
to call me out as a free-for-all, no-holds barred trouble maker. I take it/took it for granted that you all know your own
history on this matter. Apparantly not, and I am being colored dark when I have only picked a known historical starting
point in order to make MY ONLY assertion that there is something remiss in the phenomena, the discorse with Masters, and the
Societies change in direction. This was to be a fair, open and manly discussion. If the Board has to circle the wagons and
go into an attack status everytime we or one brings up a "human characater" flaw, how will we ever resolve any of the open
questions? It is a very negative tone that I am being conditionally challenged to prove points of record, and I do and will
take offense at the negative distinction, but I will do the research for you and those members who are resources of the society
itself. This seems most backwards to me, that I have to prove record to the experts, but I shall.



When I make assertions of what has been officially said, I have always been able to back them up. I did not think such would
be necessary here since these facts are formal record, and I am speaking to most learned Theosophists.



>>The Forum Guidelines have been updated and clarified to show that such a statement, as it stands, is not allowed anymore.
This Forum is for the free and unfettered discussion of Theosophical people, ideas, and teachers.
However, slander will not be allowed.

This is an ill-advised assertion and characterization of pseudo-slander of me, Nick. I have only stated official record so that
we could pick up the actual discussion at a foundational level, that there is too much unsubstantiated "givens" at the earliest
stages of the society.

>> This Forum is not going to become a free-for-all, no-holds-barred place for discussion, which is what has occured on other places on the Internet. A certain amount of civility is required to discuss the higher ideals of Theosophy, and that civility is going to be maintained here.
The Board has to have some respect for its members, and that includes respect for me. I have always been able to back up what I say
with some official publication. If this board is going to always take the stand, "protect H.P.B. at all costs," how will we
ever find the answers we need. The facts have to be laid on the table so other questions can be researched and answered. I have
no ill will towards H.P.B at all, and have always said this. Her contemporaries wanted her true human nature to be expressed
so she could be understood, as well as her work. I am only trying to pick up that point, so we can explore the observation that
thing are not adding up, the actual point of my post.


I am going to try and answer this issue tonight, but I am out of town and have had to borrow a Laptop to do it. It has no word
processsor, and I do not have my reference books. Regardless, I should be able to find some online justification that is
sufficient.

Again, I am offended that learned Theosophists would openly demean one of their members for stating points of record.

Christian

I have to return this rinky dink laptop now, but here is some tidbits to show you
that there is documentation of the points I have raised in the Society's record, in diaries, in HPB's letters to family and in journals and news articles:


Re: Claim that H.P.B. did not always tell the truth.



See how ardently H.P.B. professed herself a Spiritualist in her first letters to the papers and her first interviews
with reporters. See her at Philadelphia, doing phenomena in the Holmes séances, and allowing Gen. Lippitt, Mr. Owen,
and myself to believe they were: attributable to the mediumship of Mrs. Holmes whom, in our Scrap-Book, she brands
as a common cheat. Was not I at first made to believe that I was dealing with disincarnate spirits; and was not a
stalking-horse put forward to rap and write, and produce materialised forms for me, under the pseudonym of John King?
That this delusion was shortly dropped and the truth told me, ...


(by Olcott: Vide the old Spiritual Telegraph journal, S. B. Britten, Editor, for 1853: articles of mine signed with
my own name and the pseudonym “Amherst”.

This is also in the Society's scrapbook,and the first president of the Theosophical society's diary, as conflict 322.)



------


She chose as the easiest way out of the difficulty to contradict herself and throw the minds of her friends into confusion.
How easy it would have been for her, for example, to have told Mr. Sinnett that, when trying to enter Tibet in 1854,
and kept in his house in his wife’s company a whole month. Yet she never did, nor did any of her friends ever hear of the
circumstance until Mr. Edge and I got the story from Major-General Murray himself, on the 3rd March last, in the train between
Nalhati and Calcutta, and I had printed it. So as to her age, she told all sorts of stories, making herself twenty, forty,
even sixty and seventy years older than she really was. We have in our scrap-books certain of these tales, reported by
successive interviewers and correspondents to their journals, after personal interviews with her, and on sundry occasions when
I was present myself. 1 She said to me in excuse that the Somebodies inside her body at these various times were of these
various ages, and hence no real falsehood was told, although the auditor saw only the H.P.B. shell and thought what was said
referred only to that!

Cf. an interviewer’s report in the Hartford Daily Times, December 2, 1878. She had been making herself out a sort of Methusaleh,
and the correspondent writes: “Very, very old? Impossible. And yet she declares it is so; sometimes indignantly, sometimes with
a certain pride, sometimes with indifference or impatience. ‘I came of a very long-lived race. All my people grow to be very
old. . . . You doubt my age? I can show you my passports, my documents, my letters for years back. I can prove it by a thousand
things.’


-----

Olcott, her ownly true contemporary, and her Society's cofounder and president writes in the Theosophical scrapbook, and
also in his Diary, the following notation of how H.P.B. would make the same promise of one being her successor to many
people:

H. P. B. made numberless friends, but often lost them again and saw them turned into personal enemies.
No one could be more fascinating than she when she chose, and she chose it when she wanted to draw persons to her public work.
She would be caressing in tone and manner, and make the person feel that she regarded him as her best, if not her only friend.
She would even write in the same tone, and I think I could name a number of women who hold her letters saying
that they are to be her successors in the T.S., and twice as many men whom she declared her “only real friends
and accepted chélas.”

I have a number of such certificates, and used to think them treasures until, after comparing notes with third parties,
I found that they had been similarly encouraged, and I saw that all her eulogies were valueless.


-----

After the Society was formed, her contemporary, the President of the society writes in the official diary:

"With ordinary persons like myself and her other intimate associates, I should not say she was either loyal or staunch.
We were to her, I believe, nothing more than pawns in a game of chess, for whom she had no heart-deep love.
She repeated to me the secrets of people of both sexes—even the most compromising ones—that had been confided to her,
and she treated mine, such as they are, I am convinced, in the same fashion.

But she was loyal to the last degree to her aunt, her other relatives, and to the Masters; for whose work she would have
sacrificed not only one, but twenty lives, and calmly seen the whole human race consumed with fire, if needs be.


-----

In the official and sole diary, there is a character sketch. This segment may convey her motive in her approaches.
I am not certain of the extent Olcott meant to convey:

H. P. B. felt herself in revolt to every conventional idea of society, being in beliefs, tastes, dress, ideals, and behaviour
a social helot; so she revenged herself by showing her own commanding talents and accomplishments,
and causing society to fear her.


------

Olcott mentions often in his writing of the History, and in some publications how H.P.B. deluded, tricked, or mislead people:

This one pertains to his sister:
My respected sister, Mrs. Mitchell, who, with her husband and children, occupied a flat in the same apartment-house with us,
was one day shown by H. P. B. a collection of gems and jewelry which, she says, must have represented a value of at least
£10,000, and which she thought were part of her family inheritance. So little did she suspect that they were merely illusionary,
that she was even incredulous when I told her that H. P. B. owned no such property.
If she had, I am sure, she would never have allowed herself to be put to such straits as she was.

-------


This is on the side. When someone "commands" spirit, I draw question as to the kind of mediumship they are performing.
This was also one of the dicotomies I wanted to discuss. This is from commentary in the records about the N.Y. Lamasary:

Then Mme. Blavatsky commanded the spirit to appear of the person to whom the monument was reared. Soon a cloud of vapour
arose and obscured the little moonlight there was. We put on more incense. The cloud took the indistinct shape of an old
man with a beard, and a voice came, as it seemed, from a great distance, through the image...








-------

ANOTHER example of her devotion to India, not the West. This is what I was trying to discuss, the dicotamy:

There were stormy evenings at the Lamasery, among which stands out one episode very distinctly. Walter Paris, the artist,
and one of the best of fellows, had lived at Bombay some years as Government Architect, and was glad to talk with us about India.
But not having our excessive reverence for the country and sympathy for the people, he would often offend H. P. B.’s
sensitiveness by remarks on what I now know to be Anglo-Indian lines. One evening he was talking about an old servant of his
who had committed some stupidity in harnessing or saddling a horse, and quietly remarked that he had slashed the man with his
whip. Instantly, as if she had received the blow across her own face, H. P. B. sprang up, stood before him, and in a speech
of about five minutes gave him such a scathing rebuke as to make him sit speechless. She stigmatised the act as one of cowardice,
and made it serve as a text for a neat discourse on the treatment of the Oriental races by the Anglo-Indian ruling class.
This was not a mere casual outburst adapted to the Western market; she preserved the same tone from first to last, and I have
often heard her at Allahabad, Simla, Bombay, Madras, and elsewhere, use the same boldness of speech to the highest Anglo-Indian
officials.








PS:

As pertains the direction I had intended to go into with my response about things being "odd." I was recalling at that time
twice in the early days, Olcott and H.P.B. were going to merge their society into some other established organization. This
would be a dicotomy if they were following the directives of Masters. The non-challantly, and of their own volition the notes
would indicate seemed quite willing to say this society or that one is already doing this stuff. She seems to have had some
difference with the Masons I remotely recall from one of her books, yet oddly, I find this extraction below from the
society's history, where she and Olcott were looking for some formalization ritual so they could blend with the Masons. As I
recall, and feel free to correct me, they even announced this to their NY society. They acted similarly for appx 2 years
in regards to a society in India:

(an excerpt from the History)
On the 17th April we began to talk with Sotheran, General T., and one or two other high Masons about constituting our Society
into a Masonic body with a Ritual and Degrees; the idea being that it would form a natural complement to the higher degrees
of the craft, restoring to it the vital element of Oriental mysticism which it lacked or had lost. At the same time, such an
arrangement would give strength and permanency to the Society, by allying it to the ancient Brotherhood whose lodges are
established throughout the whole world. Now that I come to look back at it, we were in reality but planning to repeat the work
of Cagliostro, whose Egyptian Lodge was in his days so powerful a centre for the propagation of Eastern occult thought. We did
not abandon the idea until long after removing to Bombay, and the last mention of it in my Diary is an entry to the effect
Swami Dayânand Sarasvati had promised me to compile a Ritual for the use of our New York and London members.


------

In my original post, I drew attention to there being dicotmies as pertains her "choice" as the medium of choice because she
was a Westerner. She herself seemed to had disdain for the West, and wanted only to go to the East if the recorded notation
by the Society's president is to be believed. And, I cannot see why it wouldn't be.


TO WIT:
The nearer we approached the time for our change of base, the more vehement became H. P. B.’s praise of India, the Hindus,
the entire Orient and Orientals as a whole, and her disparagement of Western people as a whole, their social customs,
religious tyranny, and ideals.


Because the above was only after the first 3-years of the Society, I cannot reconcile her choice as a medium, or her
set prescribed directives from the Masters. She is not giving an indication she is following some holy quest to enlighten
the West, nor is her heart in it.


------

She has two stories of method. One, she says she is inspired, yet at other times she says her body is lent:

THIS FROM ONE OF HER PERSONAL LETTERS:
TO HER AUNT: I never put myself the question: ‘Can I write on this subject?’ . . . or, ‘am I equal to the task?’ but I simply sit down
and write. Why? Because somebody who knows all dictates to me. My Master, and occasionally others whom I knew on my travels
years ago. Please do not imagine I have lost my senses. I have hinted to you before now about them . . . and I tell you
candidly, that whenever I write upon a subject I know little or nothing of, I address myself to them, and one of them
inspires me, i.e., he allows me to simply copy what I write from manuscripts, and even printed matter that pass before my
eyes, in the air, during which process I have never been unconscious one single instant.”



OLCOTT, WHO WAS BY HER SIDE AT ALL TIMES WRITING, TAKES NOTE OF HER POSSESSIONS. HERE SHE REVEALS THE TRUTH, YET ANOTHER
EXPLAINATION BY HER:
If you had given me in those days any page of Isis manuscript, I could almost certainly have told you by which
it had been written. Where, then, was H.P.B.’s self at those times of replacement? Ah, that is the question; and that is
one of the mysteries which are not given to the first comer. 1 As I under stood it, she herself had loaned her body as one
might one’s type-writer, and had gone off on other occult business that she could transact in her astral body; a certain group
of Adepts occupying and manœuvring the body by turns. When they knew that I could distinguish between them, so as to even have
invented a name for each by which H.P.B. and I might designate them in our conversation in their absence, they would
frequently give me a grave bow or a friendly farewell nod when about to leave the room and give place to the next relief-

Nearly two years after the above was published H. P. B. explained to her relatives (cf. Path articles above cited) the secret;
she was not in her body, but seemingly near it, with full consciousness watching its manipulation by third parties.


HERE IS ANOTHER NOTE TO HER AUNT:
She writes her Aunt that when her Master was busy elsewhere he left his substitute with her, and
then it was her “Luminous Self,” her Augoeides, which thought and wrote for her...

Steven,

You asked,

"Why believe in Mahatmas at all?"

--> I can only speak for myself, when I say that their teachings ring true for me. I then make the leap of faith that the people who give these teachings actually exist.

"Where did you get your proof?"

--> I have no proof.

"If you have no proof, why do you believe in something without proof?"

--> Because

(1) I like what I hear coming from them, and it gives me the motivation to make the leap of faith necessary to believe in them.

(2) Some things cannot be proven. If you wait for everything to be proven to you, you will never be able to prove things like reincarnation, Enlightenment, Nirvana, etc.

(3) I have analyzed these teachings with a critical attitude. Quite simply, I have not found any ideas that do not make sense. As soon as I find something that does not make sense, I will throw it out of my belief system. Theosophy has been very stingy in giving me ideas that cannot fit into my belief system. Which Theosophical ideas cannot fit into your belief system?

Theosophy has also made the point that Theosophy is only a collection of teachings. The people who offer these teachings are not important, only the teachings are important. It does not matter if you believe in the Mahatmas. It does not matter if you consider HPB to be a reliable source. It does matter if you believe in the concept of reincarnation. Nothing else matters except Theosophical concepts, all of them, one by one. All that HPB did was offer up a number of strange and unusual concepts, ask us to consider them, and see if any of them fit into our individual belief systems. After that, whether we actually adopt these new concepts into our belief systems is entirely up to us. HPB made it clear that the only person responsbile for the adjustments we make in our individual belief systems is us.

"If I wanted to believe in something without proof, I could arbitrarily choose any religion that makes sense to me."

--> Is there any religion that makes 100% sense to you?

"But I don't want to do that. I want my "beliefs" to be based in reality, not in what other people have told me I should believe."

--> This is exactly why I like Theosophy more than anything else, Theosophy challenges me to take everything I read, and analyze it with a critical mind. Theosophy encourages critical-thinking of all of its ideas. Quite frankly, I have not found any other philosophy that does that. Theosophy has earned my respect, while everything else I have looked at has failed this test (for me).

"I don't see the logic in any belief system in which the followers have to assume beliefs."

--> All belief systems have beliefs which must assumed. Can you tell me one belief system that does not do this?

"Now it seems like Theosophy is just as dogmatic as any other religion...."

--> There is one difference. Theosophy's ideas are not dogmatic, in that members are not required to believe anything. For example, a person who does not believe in reincarnation or the Mahatmas is welcome to join the Sociey. And no one will tell them that they have to believe in reincarnation, the Mahatmas, or anything else. I think that most religions require a belief in something, and that refusing to believe in a particular teaching will cause that person to be labled a non-member. This does not happen in Theosophy.

"...but instead of an illogical, assumed belief in Gods, now we have an illogical, assumed belief in Mahatmas."

--> Feel free to show how the idea of the Mahatmas is illogical. (I have yet to find a flaw in the idea of the Mahatmas. Quite frankly, if there is one, I would like to hear it.)

"I just want to make sure that the Theosophical Society isn't just a group of people who believe in the writings of HPB and assume the truth of everything she said, just like adherents of every other religion assume the truth of everything their prophets say."

--> That is a valid question. HPB herself has admitted that she made mistakes in her writings. Nicholas has pointed out more than one mistake that HPB has made.

"One thing I really like about Buddhism is that it's less dogmatic than most other religions and (as far as I can tell) it doesn't require believing anything without reason or proof."

--> I do not want to talk bad about Buddhism. Theosophy and Buddhism are extremely similar. However, I think it is the very nature of any religion to become ossified and dogmatic as the centuries go by. The big difference between Theosophy and Buddhism is that Theosophy teaches there "is" an Atman while Buddhism teaches that there "is not." I was once told that, because I believe in the Atman, that I am not a Buddhist. My response was, "That works for me!" By the way, Steven, where do you stand on the Atman issue?

I want to give one more example. Several Buddhist traditions teach that humans are reborn as animals. Now, there is no way that I could ever accept such an idea into my belief system, so I would never be willing to call myself a member of those traditions. Now, the issue here is not which tradition I call myself a member of, the issues are (1) whether believing humans are reborn as animals and (2) whether a non-believer of human-to-animal rebirth should be allowed to (or would want to) call themselves a member of a tradition that teaches the exact opposite. I believe that most Buddhist traditions require their members to take the approved side of the human-to-animal rebirth issue. Theosophy makes no requirement of its members. As a matter of fact, such a requirement is strictly forbidden in Theosophy. (Now that, in my opinion, is what makes Theosophy non-dogmatic.)

"...it doesn't require believing anything without reason or proof."

--> However, it eventually does require some things to be believed, once they have been addressed via reason or "proof." Theosophy has no such requirement. Theosophy is non-dogmatic.

ChristianMyst,

Again, I think your main problem is that you don't seem to know what the occult path is about. If you read HPB's private letters to people, you will also find that sometimes she would unfairly criticize a person (say Olcott) in a letter to somebody that was very irascible. And that produced a reaction in that person. Then, she would tell Olcott she could never do anything that could really harm him. I've see that kind of things quite frequently in the letters. You will find that she distorts certain facts, etc.
A plain, mundane, interpretation of that is in tune with what you say. But if you read the Mahatma Letters, if you read HPB's words when talking about the occult path, if you read the experience of people living with HPB, you will understand things in a different way. The Mahatmas and HPB said that those who really approach the occult path, enter in a different realm and their training is a special one where he is put under the exact conditions that will make all his shortcomings manifest. In Mahatma KH words:

So they may use half truths and exaggerations to produce the desired result. As KH said speaking about M behavior:

Of course, those methods can be only used by those who are already free form illusion and selfishness. You will find some people being simply liars or dishonest and trying to justify their acts saying they had a higher purpose.
Again, if you sincerely study Theosophy, without preconceived ideas, and without trying to fit them in your frame of mind, you will find the explanations. Then, you can decide whether you agree with them or not. But to draw conclusion out of lack of knowledge is not intelligent.

Finally, you have to know about history, in order to understand historical situations. The TS wanted to work with the spiritualists, who where the only real force fighting against materialism, gradually turning them from the spiritualistic phenomena towards true spirituality. That was stated several times by both the Mahatmas and HPB. If you know anything about spiritual education, you will agree that you have to present new things GRADUALLY if you want people to understand what you say and not only to believe blindly or reject it. Any person’s worldview is a living thing, and to re-shape it you need a special course of action. That’s why HPB was gradually changing her teachings, offering every time deeper explanations that seemed to contradict the previous one. Again, that is the occult method, as stated in the Mahatma letters.