as everyone knows, total emancipation from authority of the one all-pervading power or law called God by the priests—Buddha, Divine Wisdom and enlightenment or Theosophy, by the philosophers of all ages—means also the emancipation from that of human law. Once unfettered and delivered from their dead weight of dogmatic interpretations, personal names, anthropomorphic conceptions and salaried priests, the fundamental doctrines of all religion will be proved identical in their esoteric meaning. Osiris, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, will be shown as different names for one and the same royal highway to final bliss, Nirvana.
In a previous Lucifer7 I discussed the
mentioned salaried priests.
the above quote gives much more food for thought. Starting at the
beginning seems prudent: total emancipation from authority
one all-pervading power or law called God by the priests—Buddha, Divine
Wisdom and enlightenment or Theosophy, by the philosophers of all
ages—means also the emancipation from that of human law. We
have seen and are seeing this total emancipation from divine law in our
society. (though perhaps this is merely a Dutch perspective? -
responses from abroad are invited) Perhaps it should not surprise us
that respect for human law
is also waning. One might say that school-shootings are caused by this
precise lack of respect for human law. In an atheistical society
(effectively, if not nominally) what social force is going to remind
people that right living will bring a healthy social setting? Whether
Alice Bailey's Great Invocations helps towards that goal is something I
leave up to my readers, though a highly critical assessment of that
text is included in this issue of Lucifer7. Rests for the editor to
stress that she has not studied Bailey's work enough to be able to
judge whether the mentioned article is merely nitpicking or whether it
goes right to the root of a real issue.
An old controversy is brought back into the
theosophical lime light
by the publication of a new book: The Judge Case, A Conspiracy Which
Ruined the Theosophical Cause, by Ernest E. Pelletier. Because the
review has taken up so much space, various articles which help put the
whole issue in perspective have been postponed to next month.
Contents to 'The Judge Case - A Conspiracy Which Ruined the Theosophical Cause' (word-document) - (RTF-document)
The Judge Case is an episode in theosophical history that has
enormous implications for the theosophical movement. It was the final
straw in splitting up the Theosophical Society. In trying to understand
Judge-case various strands have to be pulled together. First and
foremost of those is obviously a knowledge of the history of the
Theosophical Society, its founders and the life of W.Q. Judge. In order
for the case to be finally laid to rest, the issue needs an impartial
handling in which testimony from both sides is taken into
consideration. Unfortunately, The Judge Case - A Conspiracy
Ruined the Theosophical Cause (TJC) leaves out important
documentation previously published in Theosophical History (TH).
Judge made claims that can only be seen in their proper
perspective within the framework of theosophical
doctrines and practice with regard to the Mahatma-chela- relationship
($). The below is the editor's attempt at making sense of the whole
mess, with help of the book under review, some articles in the Dutch
magazine Theosofia (by Henk Spierenburg) and various articles in
TH. Spierenburg has been instrumental in writing this
review as he pointed me to the relevant sources and has made sure I had
them all to begin with.
First a historical reminder for those who haven't studied theosophical history in depth. W.Q. Judge was one of the co-founders of the Theosophical Society when it started out in New York in 1875. During H.P. Blavatsky's lifetime Judge organized the American Section (i.e. the one in the United States), wrote articles, claims to have given the initiative to start the EST (%) and set up his own magazine (The Path) which was filled to a large extent with articles he wrote himself, often using pseudonyms. All in all he was a supporter of H.P. Blavatsky, helped when the troubles in India reached a head (the Coulomb-case) and made himself generally useful. On the other hand, according to countess Wachtmeister, he did not help much when the final report by the SPR came out. (%$)
After H.P. Blavatsky died at first the survivors seemed to get
fine. Annie Besant, a more recent 'convert' to the Theosophical Society
and Judge together headed the Esoteric Section, Olcott was president of
the TS internationally and all seemed well. Trouble broke out soon
though, over messages that Judge was accused of having forgered - short
ones, usually, supposedly by Mahatmas. This issue eventually split up
Society in two: the American Section became the independent
Theosophical Society of America (by which term the USA was again
after, in 1896, Judge died and the fledgling society tried to find an
successor to him, and Catherine Tingley was the only candidate. This is
the story in short. The long story has kept debate
going ever since.
Since this book is so full of source material,
reproduced in the
appendices, a lot of interesting information is there even for those
who don't support the final conclusion the compiler comes to. For
instance in relation to a question a fellow Dutch theosophist asked me
a few years ago: when did the sanskrit-sign for Aum end up on the seal
of the Theosophical Society? Since in this book a few US-membership
diploma's are photographically reproduced one can say for sure that
from 1887 to 1900 the seal used on membership diploma's there did not
include the aum topping off the seal. Also the six-pointed star hangs
free of the serpent that bites its own tail. (p. 192-205) Interesting,
and meriting its own booklet as far as I'm concerned is the collection
of Judge quotes included in TJC.
Those interested in his life ought to buy the present book and are sure to find new information in it. Spierenburg noted that this is not really a book - it is a library. This comment is pertinent because not only does this book include a part 1 and 2 (each 400+ pages) in one volume - both volumes consist of various supplements, appendices etc. Since no index to the whole book is included (there is one to the supplement though) it is very hard to get a comprehensive idea about the book, without actually reading it. To help herself the present editor has compiled the various 'contents-pages' into one long contents page to the whole book. See the links below.
Often with books from volunteer-based publishers it is hard to
overlook the flaws in a work and get to the content. In this case the
lack of a contents page makes it even harder to do that. The
structure of the book is so unique that it needs a few more words. It
starts out with a chronology. This highly useful researchers tool is
the heart of the book. Then follows the part where the compiler uses
his own words to formulate his opinion: the supplement. This follows
and the Judge case and its various threads starting at the beginning
and going on roughly chronologically. Then follow lists of sources.
This concludes part 1. Part 2 is a series of appendices. Each is listed
in a contents page. Since these appendices are thematically organized
reproduced sources each appendix also has a contents page. The value of
the book is mostly in the chronology and the reproduced sources.
In the introduction Pelletier says that he has not been able to prove to his own satisfaction whether Judge falsified Mahatma-letters or not. In fact, those mahatma-messages are not even reproduced here, because they were destroyed by Annie Besant. Pelletier has proved to his own satisfaction that Judge was conspired against. This is where it gets tricky. The book is put together in such a way that the reader has to become a researcher themselves in order to be able to do more than take the authors words at face value. The main thesis of this book seems to be that a conspiracy existed, from the Black Brotherhood, to attack first H.P. Blavatsky and when she was no longer alive, her successor as representative of the White Brotherhood: W.Q. Judge. The evidence supplied to make this reasonable is the following. (1) Blavatsky quotes are supplied where she names Judge her successor after she and Olcott are gone. Another piece of the puzzle (2) is the idea that Judge was an initiate. At the heart of the supposed conspiracy is a Brahman from India: (3) Chakravarti. Judge claims Chakravarti magnetized Annie Besant. To elaborate on these three points:
was also very positive about Besant, this
cannot be used to support Judge's position in the TS. To quote Henk
Spierenburg (TH-HJS, p. 205):
Indeed, already in June 1882 H.P.B. even made the following remarks:Also, though in this book the fact is downplayed: Besant was made secretary of the Inner Group. Secretaries are amongst the hardest working members in any council. They are also often the real decision-makers. In this case the secretary was responsible for the recording of the teachings. What job could be more responsible? To top it all off, according to Blavatsky's devoted friend countess Wachtmeister (TPH-W, p. 55) the signet-ring that Besant had, was going to belong
Another lady orator, of deservedly great fame, both for eloquence and learning - the good Mrs. Annie Besant - without believing in controlling spirits, or, for that matter, in her own spirit, yet speaks and writes such sensible and wise things, that we might almost say that one of her speeches or chapters contains more matter to benefit humanity, than would equip a modern trance-speaker for an entire oratorical career. [H.P.Blavatsky Collected Writings: 1882-1883. vol. IV, p, 124]
"to her successor, and ... the properties attached to it were very magnetic. When after H.P.B.'s decease in London, I was informed that the ring had been given to Annie Besant by her express directions, I knew that Annie Besant was her successor."
(2) Pelletier uses the following to support
his case that Judge was
an initiate: during the time W.Q. Judge was in India his route can
not be traced.
Unfortunately, as with most initiates, Judge did not actually come
right out and say he was an initiate. Still, the personage Z in
'Letters that Have Helped Me' does claim occult knowledge and is widely
assumed to be Judge.
On the other hand, the following quote from Theosophical History makes his initiation highly unlikely. Blavatsky wrote the following to Judge in 1887 and the bulk of it is still relevant when the Judge-case rocks the TS since Judge remained maried his whole life. In other words the chances of him being the kind of initiate that Pelletier infers he is, seem slim to me. Here it is in Blavatsky's words:
If you went in search of the Masters now - you would not find Them.One must be free & unclaimed by man or woman if he would offer himself personally to them. Otherwise the link which binds you to Brooklyn [where his wife lived] would be like a rope ever pulling you back. [TH-HPB, p. 126]
(3) Judge was not an eye-witness to the
magnetization of Besant by
Chakravarti. He did see that
Besant and Chakravarti were
getting close (during the convention in Chicago) and did not like this.
The original source for the claim that Besant was magnetized is
Archibald Keightley. Another piece of
evidence is that Besant reportedly changed her attitude to
non theosophists drastically around the same time that Chakravarti
supposedly influenced her: she simply ignored non-members of the
Theosophical Society (TS) while visiting Toronto at this time.
Chakravarti was apparently a skilled
hypnotist. In this relation the Prayag Letter (see
relevant. In it the Mahatmas make it clear that though everybody
Indian Brahmans) are allowed as members into the TS, but brahmins can
expect help from the white brotherhood if they give up all the
advantages of their caste. Chakravarti was one of the Prayag Brahmins.
This led Judge to distrust him even more. But Wachtmeister records that
previous to the troubles, Judge had thought Chakravarti might make a
good TS-president. This again puts Judge's inside-knowledge on a loose
Echoing other Judge-apologists, this book puts a lot
of stock on
Judge's calm demeaner all through the troubles. His attitude is
contrasted with that of Besant and Olcott who both seemed more insecure
and each expressed regret at the end of their life for prosecuting
Judge. But reading the book it is difficult to ignore that at about the
time the troubles came to a head Judge was spreading rumours to well
people that Besant was hypnotized by Chakravarti and thus lost her
balance. The evidence of that has been carefully collected by
Judge-adherents because they see it as evidence that Besant was
hypnotized. But it is equally rational to conclude that Judge was
conspiring against Besant, because he might have been jealous of her
influence (by all accounts she was a very good orator) or worried about
the direction her version of theosophy seemed to take. I'm not saying
this was his motivation, I'm just noting that the evidence can go both
Pelletier is obviously a supporter of W.Q. Judge. As
such he stands
in a tradition of not taking H.S. Olcott very seriously. This
tradition bases itself on the famous statement by a mahatma to Olcott:
H.P.B. has next to no concern with administrative details, and should be kept clear of them, so far as her strong nature can be controlled. But this you must tell all: With occult matters she has everything to do. We have not abandoned her; she is not "given over to chelas". She is our direct agent. [Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom 1870-1900, First Series, p. 46; TH-HJS, p. 203]But Olcott was appointed as an officer of the E.S. [TH-HJS, p. 203], and like Judge did not have to take new vows. The same article by Henk Spierenburg also points to another all but forgotten piece of Blavatsky-testimony:
she [H.P.B.] recognizes but one person in the T.S. besides herself, namely Colonel Olcott, as having the right of effecting fundamental re-organizations in a Society which owes its life to them, and for which they are karmically responsible. [ H.P.B. Collected Writings, vol. XI, p. 382; TH-HJS, p. 204]
In this struggle both sides have accused the other side of losing their spiritual compass after the demise of H.P. Blavatsky. Every spiritual movement has a difficult time after the demise of its main inspiration. People can no longer go to their 'leader' but have to decide for themselves what is true and what is right action. In a sense it is the ultimate spiritual test: how to cope without the support of an authoritative teacher. There is evidence that Judge lost touch with Blavatsky's version of theosophy. Though his articles for the Path are generally inspiring and clear and students haven't noted many places where he contradicts her or the Mahatmas. The Letters That Have Helped Me are generally inspiring to read and highly recommended for anyone new to theosophy.
There is one issue that requires a closer look. In his personal life Judge had been looking for an occult successor for years. First for H.P. Blavatsky, later perhaps for himself as his health was not good. Appendix G (TJC part 2 p. 371-419) goes into the issue of the succession of Judge by Katherine Tingley. Though, according to the introduction to Appendix G the evidence can go both ways, there is one piece of evidence there that in my opinion can't be said to go both ways. This is the letter to Archibald Keightley (TJC part 2 p. 398 - see links below). Here he says, 4 years after Blavatsky passed away, "Enclosed is an exact transcript of what HPB said to me Jan[uar]y 3."... "You can let all worthy & devoted loyalists read this". Despite this the introduction to appendix G says "The conclusion that Judge received and accepted communications from the deceased H.P.B. as genuine, may or may not be accurate". The compiler makes no attempt to show the above mentioned letter as itself a forgery, probably because ample testimony exists that it is authentic. If Judge was an occult teacher, why would he send such a message to his followers with the implication that they should take heart (the message from H.P.B. is positive towards Judge and tells him that 'all will end for the good of all') if he does not believe it is genuine? Obviously he does believe H.P.B. was talking to him. If he was a mere human, this isn't to be wondered at (#). He was in dire straits and would have wondered what to do with himself, the difficulties and the Theosophical Society. That he would turn to mediums to tell him what to do is not strange since the belief was current that sometimes mediums brought messages from Mahatmas. Also it was thought that mediums, if they left their mediumistic talents alone for a bit, might turn into reliable mediators for the Mahatmas at a later date when they got full control over their powers, as H.P.B. herself had done. Where he does cross the line of Blavatsky-based theosophical practice is in assuming that H.P.B. would talk through mediums after her death. She clearly stated she wouldn't. (*) Easy as it is to say this in hindsight: the message in question is an obvious case of a medium (Tingley) telling a client exactly what they want to hear.
On the other hand - Mrs. Besant and the committee which prosecuted Judge did not give Judge proper time and occasion to defend himself. The letters which supposedly incriminate Judge were not given out. Defence was therefore not possible under the normal circumstances of the law (TJC: part 2, p. 304). In fact, the Adyar-TS has not given those documents out for the publication of this book, more than a century later. In her defence Annie Besant says that Judge did have access to the material she planned to use in the proceedings. She also claims she destroyed much of the evidence. It may be, therefore, that the material that is in this book, is really all that can at present be found even if the ES-archives of the TS-Adyar had been open to the investigators. In the end, Judge claimed that he had the right, as of the TS-constitution, to his own opinion on whether or not he was in touch with Mahatmas and had a right to give out messages in their name. Olcott and Besant had to agree on this. Judge therefore had no need of any evidence they might have brought with them as he used the very foundation of the TS (freedom of thought and speech) as his defence. Granting that Judge believed he was a messenger of the Masters, it is still relevant to theosophists even now to form an opinion on whether he in fact was such a messenger. Though Judge obviously had a point - freedom of opinion is indeed a central issue in the TS - the outcome was obviously highly frustrating to many members. The evidence brought forward by Besant hadn't even been discussed.
The case against Judge was solved (officially) by not solving it. In the end Besant's case was brought out through the media and Judge wrote a reply. Judge deals with most incidents to my satisfaction, except for two incidents where either of the two theories given below may fit. In both theories Judge made mistakes. The gravity of those mistakes (based after all on motive) varies with the theory.
For me it is difficult to ignore the evidence by Alexander Fullerton (TJC: 21-24). Fullerton was a longtime member of the TS in New York, never much in the foreground. He did not write much but the TS in the USA was built on his work (as on that of W.Q. Judge). Fullerton's story makes it sound as if Judge used the Mahatma's authority to get his way. Judge-supporters may be impressed by the many instances where Judge graciously stepped aside and did not take all the organisational power he might have. But was this spiritual grandure or the simple recognition that real power is not in the office one holds, but in the influence one has on other people? Krishnamurti rightly warned against the wish to influence people. The reason why Chakravarti's magnetizing Besant is made so much of is that he thereby could have influenced her. Judge clearly also influenced many people. This is in itself is not suspect. Blavatsky also influenced many people. There is a fine line between teaching and influencing that is probably the line between white and black magic. But what if Judge came to depend on the ability to influence people? What if he became used to getting his way - as he was apparently very popular in the US and in most places he went? What if he came to think that what he wanted was what the masters wanted? In the Letters That Have Helped Me he expresses the opinion that one should never doubt oneself (**). This can easily lead to lack of self-reflection. The Fullerton-material implies that Judge used the mahatma-support he felt he had for political issues. Personally I can't read this without very much doubting whether Judge still knew his own inner voice from that of the Mahatma. Again: this is quite normal. It is only very high initiates who will always be able to make this distinction. Blavatsky herself is known to have made mistakes in this regard. Unfortunately though, if the connection with the Mahatmas isn't such that they will step in, in most cases a free fall into error is inevitable. This is where later on Leadbeater and Besant ended up making their worst mistakes.
An alternative theory, which implies Judge to have been a high initiate (though the Blavatsky quote above pretty much shatters this assumption), is that Judge did hear the Master's voice and knew how to distinguish it (even when emotionally and mentally upset) from his own thoughts. Even if he did know that distinction at all times, I don't think he handled that expertly in all cases. It seems to me that he referred to their authority a bit too often. Especially in cases where he had not been ordered to share their opinion, he still managed to refer to them, hinting at their involvement. This must have frustrated the readers and could have been avoided if Judge had simply not hinted at the source his occult knowledge or insight so much. As with Blavatsky it may be that his crime lay not so much in referring to the Mahatmas and misusing their authority, but simply in not being a skillfull liar. As he was bound to secrecy - lying would have been at times the only option if repeated questions were asked. Had he just avoided referring to them, even when he did believe they were involved, he would have gotten into less trouble.
Was W.Q. Judge conspired against? Did
Besant become magnetized to trust in Brahmin-hinduism too much? Did
Olcott lose touch with the Mahatmas? I don't know. Unfortunately The
Judge Case ignores much of the material that has been
the magazine Theosophical History over the years,
for the present reviewer to look them up personally. The letter by
Blavatsky, the article by Spierenburg and the testimony of Wachtmeister
taken together pull the rug under most of Pelletier's thesis and minor
points. I have only gone into the main issues here. The result of the
Judge case was in all events the split up of the Theosophical Society
and with that starting point, the movement shattered ultimately into
far more fragments. Whatever his mistakes, the literature Judge
stands as a monument to his theosophical insight even now. As this case
is still a dividing point between the various theosophical groups, it
is unfortunate that a more impartial hearing wasn't produced. Still,
TJC pulls together pieces of evidence and details from Judge's life
that have been hard to find otherwise. The serious student of
theosophical history can't do without this book.
($) A mahatma is, in Blavatskyan theosophy, a human being with psychic abilities beyond those of average mankind and a relative command of psychic forces. A chela is any accepted disciple of a mahatma (or mahatmas). These will undergo various tests and trials in which their ethical nature, their stamina and intuition are all tested. Chela's range from the almost normal person to a near-mahatma. In fact: a mahatma is usually not considered fully enlightened yet, and to the extent that they are still learning, are also still chela's. An accepted disciple is someone who has been tested to at least the extent that they are trusted by the mahatmas and are not going to be fooled by the more basic psychic and psychological traps the path has in store for us. More on this in the form of quotes by Blavatsky and the Mahatmas in the Esoteric Studies Guide [Katinka Hesselink Net] - Editor
(%) Countess Wachtmeister claims she had discussed this option
before Judge came up with the idea. TH-W, p. 54.
(%$) SPR: Society for Psychic Research. Countess
H.P.B. had undoubtedly a sincere affection for W.Q. Judge, though he did not always prove himself worthy of it. I know how bitterly she felt in Würzburg that he did not take up her defence against the attacks of the Psychical Research Society. When he read that book in which she was so cruelly accused and trampled upon, surely, had he possessed the devotion for her which he now blazons forth before the world, he would have flown to her side, and tried through his great ability, his devotion, and his presence, to heal some of the wounds of that bleeding heart. I can never forget those days of agony for H.P.B., and how she felt herself deserted by all those who had professed such devotion to her. As she pathetically said one day: "If there was only one man, who had the courage to come forward and defend me as he would defend his own mother, if thus scurrilously attacked, the whole current of the Theosophical Society would be changed." [TH-W, p. 55]
(#) Actually, infallible initiates aren't supposed to exist, except perhaps the highest of them. Even the Mahatmas didn't claim infallibility for themselves. They were very clear in stressing that only in their Mahatmic-state were they close to all-knowing. In their normal state (and they wrote their letters in their normal state) they were just highly evolved human beings, liable to error. This does not decrease the value of their teachings, for they had the time (in the A.P. Sinnett Letters (LINK) to correct mistakes in many cases. Still it does make the idea that because Judge was an initiate of some grade or other, he could not make mistakes, incorrect, based on theosophical doctrine. It is noted by the Compiler of this volume that Judge does not admit to any mistakes. This is taken as evidence that he did not make any. I would take it as evidence that he was no longer seeing clearly.
(*) While it is yet time, both the founders of the Theosophical Society place upon record their solemn promise that they will let trance mediums severely alone after they get to “the other side.” [The Theosophist, Vol. IV, No. 6, March, 1883, p. 137; H.P. Blavatsky C.W. Vol. 4, p. 352-353] The full article will be published in the next Lucifer7.
That Have Helped Me;
The doubt which you now feel as to success is morbid. Please destroy it. Better a false hope with no doubt, than much knowledge with doubts of your own chances. "He that doubteth is like the waves of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed." Doubt is not to be solely guarded against when applied to Masters (whom I know you doubt not). It is most to be guarded and repelled in relation to oneself. Any idea that one cannot succeed, or had better die than live because an injured body seems to make success unattainable, is doubt.This advice seems problematic to me. One has to always doubt the lower self (the personality) and guard against all vice (as Judge does warn to do) and on the other hand trust in the ability to overcome all problems.
"234. Beware of this, O candidate! Beware of fear that spreadeth, like the black and soundless wings of midnight bat, between the moonlight of thy Soul and thy great goal that loometh in the distance far away.
235. Fear, O disciple, kills the will and stays all action. If lacking in the Shila virtue, -- the pilgrim trips, and Karmic pebbles bruise his feet along the rocky path." (H.P. Blavatsky, Voice of the Silence, Fragment III) [Shila means patience]But the paradox here is that one has to also face whatever personality-flaws one may have and be able to face up to mistakes and if possible, correct them. A pertinent article by (probably) Blavatsky is The Great Paradox.
What is your present relationship with another - not the romantic, imaginative, flowery and superficial thing that disappears in a few minutes - but, actually, what is your relationship with another? What is your relationship with a particular person? - perhaps intimate, involving sex, involving dependence on each other, possessing each other and therefore arousing jealousy and antagonism. The man or the woman goes off to the office, or to do some kind of physical work, where he or she is ambitious, greedy, competitive, aggressive to succeed; he or she comes back home and becomes a tame, friendly, perhaps affectionate husband or wife. That is the actual daily relationship. Nobody can deny that. And we are asking: is that right relationship? We say no, certainly not, it would be absurd to say that that is right relationship. We say that, but continue in the same way. We say that that is wrong but we do not seem to be able to understand what right relationship is - except according to the pattern set by ourselves, by society. We may want it, we may wish for it, long for it, but longing and wishing do not bring it about. We have to go into it seriously to find out.
Relationship is generally sensuous - begin with that - then from sensuality there is companionship, a sense of dependence on each other; then there is the creating of a family which increases dependence on each other. When there is uncertainty in that dependence the pot boils over. To find right relationship one has to enquire into this great dependence on each other. Psychologically why are we so dependent in our relationships with each other? Is it that we are desperately lonely? Is it that we do not trust anybody - even our own husband or wife? On the other hand, dependence gives a sense of security; a protection against this vast world of terror. We say: "I love you." In that love there is always the sense of possessing and being possessed. And when that situation is threatened there arises all the conflict. That is our present relationship with each other, intimate or otherwise. We create an image about each other and cling to that image.
The moment you are tied to another person, or tied to an idea or concept, corruption has begun. That is the thing to realise and we do not want to realise it. So, can we live together without being tied, without being dependent on each other psychologically? Unless you find this out you will always live in conflict, because life is relationship. Now, can we objectively, without any motive, observe the consequences of attachment and let them go immediately? Attachment is not the opposite of detachment. I am attached and I struggle to be detached; which is: I create the opposite. The moment I have created the opposite conflict comes into being. But there is not opposite; there is only what I have, which is attachment. ...
When you really understand the nature of relationship, which only exists when there is no attachment, when there is no image about the other, then there is real communion with each other.
(a) Time is only an illusion produced by the succession of our states of consciousness as we travel through eternal duration, and it does not exist where no consciousness exists in which the illusion can be produced; but “lies asleep.” The present is only a mathematical line which divides that part of eternal duration which we call the future, from that part which we call the past. Nothing on earth has real duration, for nothing remains without change—or the same—for the billionth part of a second; and the sensation we have of the actuality of the division of “time” known as the present, comes from the blurring of that momentary glimpse, or succession of glimpses, of things that our senses give us, as those things pass from the region of ideals which we call the future, to the region of memories that we name the past. In the same way we experience a sensation of duration in the case of the instantaneous electric spark, by reason of the blurred and continuing impression on the retina. The real person or thing does not consist solely of what is seen at any particular moment, but is composed of the sum of all its various and changing conditions from its appearance in the material form to its disappearance from the earth. It is these “sum-totals” that exist from eternity in the “future,” and pass by degrees through matter, to exist for eternity in the “past.” No one could say that a bar of metal dropped into the sea came into existence as it left the air, and ceased to exist as it entered the water, and that the bar itself consisted only of that cross-section thereof which at any given moment coincided with the mathematical plane that separates, and, at the same time, joins, the atmosphere and the ocean. Even so of persons and things, which, dropping out of the to-be into the has-been, out of the future into the past—present momentarily to our senses a cross-section, as it were, of their total selves, as they pass through time and space (as matter) on their way from one eternity to another: and these two constitute that “duration” in which alone anything has true existence, were our senses but able to cognize it there.
"Prepare men for the reappearance of Christ. This is your first and greatest duty."According to Bailey, the last time this Hierarchy incarnated and governed the race of men was during the time of Atlantis (The Externalization of the Hierarchy . pg333) which is strange as HPB does not consider the Atlantean Age to be all that great in terms of morality. So I cringe at the time when "Senior Members of the Hierarchy will appear and take outer and recognisable physical control of world affairs." (ibid 570)
"Let LIGHT and LOVE and POWER RESTORE the PLAN ON EARTH"What PLAN is this? Is it suggesting that their is NO PLAN in NATURE and someone has to restore it? Who are you going to have do this? What is his intention? What is it that they want RESTORED? What is the mental atmosphere that this invocation is really invoking?
"When CHRIST COMES FORTH from the Place of Power, bringing His disciples, the MASTERS OF THE WISDOM, with Him, that PLACE of Love and Power will be SITUATED ON EARTH, and will be PUBLICLY RECOGNISED; the effects of that APPEARANCE will be terrific, calling forth an EQUALLY TERRIFIC ONSLAUGHT and EFFORT by the FORCES OF EVIL - unless humanity itself HAS FIRST 'sealed the door where evil dwells' ''That evil would be me or anyone else or thing that disagrees with the postulate of a coming world ruler.
A GREAT crowd stood outside the DOOR which, it was said, would open when a ray from the Sun reached a given point on the latch. Everyone pressing close to the mighty frame was waiting for the Moment so that he could be the first to rush in and claim for himself from the storehouse of treasures behind the Door a gift so priceless that he would never even want for more.
Of all the crowd - some crippled, some strong, some rich, some poor, some young, and some old, some beautiful, some ugly, some haughty, and some friendly - not one had ever seen the Door of Christmas open. Yet, all believed that it would open on this Day. It would open, it was said, to the one who would give the Right Knock. It was commonly thought that there would be only one who would give the Right Knock and each hoped that it would be he. Some carried secret keys with which they hoped to unlock the Door if it did not quickly give way to their touch. Others hoped to break it down from the tremendous force of their physical power. Each pushed as closely toward the Door as possible - crowding and pushing and in some cases stealing his neighbor's vantage point as he did so.
It was dreary waiting outside the Door and some grew fearful lest the Sun should go behind a cloud before its ray should reach the given point. That would necessitate another Cycle of Waiting. Dark shadows above and around began to deepen and everyone knew that the Time when the ray would either appear in a momentary burst of splendor or remain hidden in a dark envelopment of cloud was very near. It was then that one feeling the tension of the hour and the tragedy of his own soul cried out:
"Fools! Fools, all of you! To believe in old wives, tales. That door will never open. It has never opened to anyone yet and if it should, there would be nothing more than pretty pieces of glass and cockle-shells to reward you!"
He would have spoken longer but the crowd in a terrible rage cried, "Blasphemer!" and "Away with him!" until those closest picked him up and running to the far distant edge of a mountain, threw him over the side and hurried back lest they should miss the ray of the Sun when it appeared on the latch.
A boy climbing up the steep precipice found the unfortunate unbeliever bleeding and all but dying. He stooped to inquire the cause of the man's misery. When he was told that the men waiting at the Door of Christmas had thrown him over the mountainside the boy said: "I too am on my way to the Door of Christmas. Here! I will bind your wounds and help you back up again. We will go together."
The man forgetting for a moment his pain, looked curiously at the lad. Then a strange glimmer of something akin to renewed faith lighted his face.
"You must hurry," he finally smiled, "you might be late." But the boy shook his head.
"There is always time to help
suffer. Besides, if I do not see the ray today I may see it
next time it appears. There is always so much to do to help."
But the injured man urged him to hurry. Then seeing the boy would not leave him, he painfully stumbled to his feet and leaning heavily on the youth climbed to the top with him.
At the crest of the mountain they encountered a bewildering scene; for it appeared that everyone who waited at the Door o Christmas was fighting - rolling and tumbling, scratching and pushing for a place of vantage near the Door. The man whom the crowd had sought to destroy sat down by the roadside.
"I am too weary," he said, "to go further. I will rest and come another day. You must go on."
The boy, understanding, turned to the man and smiled. "If the Door should open unto me I will bring back my Treasure to you!" With that he left the man and went with shining eyes toward the Door, close to which he found an old man who had not joined in the brawl, patiently awaiting the appearance of the ray from the Sun. No one had apparently seen the old man by the threshold, but suddenly he cried out and all became aware of him, and ceased their fighting.
"The Door! He's gone through the Door! He's gone - It was the Boy - "
But those who had been fighting had not seen the boy at all. Some came close to the old man and asked him what he meant. And he answered that the Boy standing close to him had looked at him suddenly and cried:
"The Light! Do you not see It on the latch?" But the old man had seen nothing extraordinary and he had thought the boy was daft. He had watched him then in idle curiosity and the boy had appeared to speak with Someone at the door. Amused at the lad's fancy he had even caught his words:
". . . I should mold the key from Love and give it to my Brother so that he might unlock the Door of Understanding!"
Those who had ceased their quarrelling gathered around the old man and asked him many questions: "Did you not see with whom the boy had talked?" "What else did he say?" "Where did the boy go?"
And the old man answered:
"As I watched, looking as straight as I could at the lad, he seemed to disappear right through the Door! It was as if there were no Door!"
This e-zine provides general information only and may or may not reflect the position of the editors. Lucifer7 makes every reasonable effort to ensure that the information is accurate, but is in no way responsible for opinions based on that information. We cannot guarantee the reliability of any information posted.