|
Dear editor,
I read with interest Pablo Sender's article "Mahatmas
versus Ascended Masters" in the summer 2011 issue
of Quest. He seems to make a strong case for Theosophists
not to take the Ascended Master teachings coming from the
Ballards and Prophets serious. The discrepancy between on
one side the writings of Blavatsky and the Mahatma Letters
and on the other side the channeled material from Ascended
Master groups is just too big for the latter to have any
footing. But on closer reading there are numerous methodological,
factual and metaphysical problems confronting the more attentive
student. Please allow me therefore an amicus brief on behalf
of the defendants in this case.
First, the almost thirty notes within the text coming from
a selection of eleven publications are practically all primary
Theosophical sources. These precise sources are then pitted
against generalized, un-sourced depictions of what the writer
perceives to be accurate presentations of Ascended Master
teachings, with all channelers lumped together without any
other differentiation. Sometimes he is right, sometimes
he is wrong. How can a reader of this magazine, absent adequate
and fair references, find out for him or herself? And even
if references were given, one would not find any works by
Ballard or Prophet at the Olcott Library at The Theosophical
Society of America. I was assured that some works were present
at the library but were purged by orders from a leading
Theosophist. The situation in the Netherlands is more fortunate
with the main library of the Dutch Section of The Theosophical
Society carrying more than sixty titles by the Ballards
and Prophets in both English and Dutch.
Secondly, many of the depictions of Ascended Master teachings
are not accurate. I have been a member of The Summit Lighthouse
founded by Mark Prophet and I am very familiar with its
teachings. Contrary to what Mr. Sender posits, those teachings
on the dangers of the human ego, the illusory nature of
reality, the value of compassion and altruism and the essence
of a Master are in spirit similar, if not, at least highly
compatible with Theosophy. Admittedly, there are serious
discrepancies also, but those can have multiple reasons
and are not, in my opinion, necessarily to be decided in
favor of Blavatsky or the Mahatma Letters. That would boil
down to a dogmatism Blavatsky herself would abhor. Nor should
these discrepancies be construed as sufficient evidence
to dismiss the Ascended Master teachings. So far students
of Theosophy and Theosophical libraries have been quite
tolerant, even appreciative, of many metaphysical authors
deviating from the Blavatskyan oeuvre, like C.W. Leadbeater,
Rudolf Steiner, Alice Bailey and J. Krishnamurti. Even the
New Age channelers J.Z. Knight, Shirley MacLaine and Helen
Shucman are not left in the cold. Why this, and here I speak
also from personal experience, cold shoulder to a body of
influential and serious teachings?
Lastly, to put the whole problematic in a historical perspective,
I like to present the following overarching hypothetical
narrative, within which the problematic of discrepancies
takes on a quite different color. The Theosophical Society
was founded, not only to re-introduce to the west the idea
of an Ancient Wisdom, but also to prepare the world for
the coming of a great teacher. This World Teacher Project
was started with J. Krishnamurti as the possible vehicle
for this teacher. Unfortunately Krishnamurti decided to
go his own way, denounced Theosophy, and gave the world
a terse and exoteric version of Advaita Vedanta. Meanwhile
the Masters implemented Plan B to give the world the new
teachings promised and to compensate for the failed World
Teacher Project. This was done, starting in the early 1930s,
with Guy and Edna Ballard. They released what is now known
as the Ascended Master teachings, which were a continuation,
with here and there some corrections, of Theosophy. Their
torch was carried on later by Mark and Elizabeth Clare Prophet
with the latter being a good candidate of principal messenger
for the Masters in the Theosophically significant last quarter
of the 20th century. (For a footnoted version of this narrative
see my "The
Masters and Their Emissaries: From HPB to Guru Ma and Beyond."
Given the above considerations I do not think the case
Mahatmas vs Ascended Masters can be decided in favor
of the plaintiffs and I urge any potential juror to do his
or her own independent research.
Govert Schuller
Naperville, Illinois
Source
Quest: Journal of the Theosophical Society in America
100/1 (Winter 2012): 4.
Editing
Above is the longer, original letter to the editor. A shorter
version was published because of space constraints.
See also response by Paula Kehoe.
|
