Aren’t we a lucky bunch? We have all sorts of things to play with these days complete with all the bells and whistles– the alleged truth and non-truth, the inner voice and the outer voice, guides, spirits, inter-dimensional energies, ascended masters, bogey men and anything else we can conjure up when we want to. Don’t get me wrong, I am not knocking anyone’s personal fav and I enjoy the ‘variety’ myself, it’s just that sometimes something comes up that shakes a foundation or two and is worth a look. Allow me to share some information that came to my attention a while ago during some research. Those of you who know about it, don’t give the ending away…
For your personal discernment …
Background:
Russian esotericist Helena Petrova Blavatsky (1831-1891) is a widely recognized figure of nineteenth century occult revival and she is best known as the founder of the modern Theosophical Movement. That movement is based upon “teachings” and “techniques” she claimed to have received from real acquaintances who she called “Masters” or Mahatmas.” As many are well aware, various types of organizations have incorporated these Masters into their beliefs and foundational credos and the media stream has been inundated with books, cards and all sorts of paraphernalia and “channeling” concerning them. Pretenders are everywhere claiming to be agents of the High Ones. Blavatsky’s “Masters” were incorporated directly into the teachings of her ‘spiritual descendants’ including such notaries as Gottfried de Purucker, Charles W. Leadbeater, Alice Bailey and Elizabeth Claire Prophet not to mention a further indirect effect on the Anthropological Society ( Rudolf Seiner), the Ancient and Mystical Order of Rosae Crucis (H. Spencer Lewis) and the Rosicrucian Fellowship (Max Heindel), the Secret Chiefs of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Ordo Templi Orientis and the teachings of G.I. Gurdjieff. Impressive aye?
The truth is these “hidden masters” of Blavatsky have never been thoroughly investigated. Were they real people as she claimed or simply a manifestation of her often theatrical nature? Where do you stand? Accept? Deny? Or are you on the fence in the gray area thinking they are put to best use via spiritual archetype?
Hypothesis:
Running with this supposition – The Masters were real people who were “fictionalized” and “glamorized” in all of Blavatsky’s accounts. The “Masters” did undergo rapid changes in a few short years … “John King of Spiritualist fame to Tuitit and Serapis Bey of the Egyptian Brotherhood of Luxor and finally Indian Mahatmas or ‘great souls’.” It was under the alleged influence of the Masters that Blavatsky and her associate Henry Steel Olcott traveled to India and it was there that the debate began over their existence.
Clues via back-up history: It is well known that Blavatsky had a fascination with Tibet since her early childhood rooted in her experiences with the Kalmuck tribe (based in Astrakhan near southern Russia) which practiced Tibetan Buddhism. Her great grandfather practiced Rosicrucian Masonry and he had a vast occult library where she spent a lot of time. Her great grandfather also belonged to the Rite of Strict Observance (founded Germany 1754) which, “claimed to emanate from a worldwide network of Unknown Superiors. Great Grandpa was further rumored to have met, “… celebrated eighteenth century mages known as the counts Cagliostro (the last victim of the Inquisition he became a Masonic Martyr) and Saint Germain. She later became familiar with Sufism, Kabbalah, Coptic Christianity and the Druze and in truth had many teachers of varied experience.
Stars of the show:
The top ranking Masters most involved with the Theosophical Society (established New York, 1875) were Koot Hoomi or Kuthumi and El Morya. Blavatsky claimed to have spent many years studying with them in Tibet and claimed that therefore they were able to perform amazing psychic feats through her. Converts soon followed among them, A.P. Sinnett who wrote The Occult World and Esoteric Buddhism based on “letters from the Mahatmas (Masters).” The letters would appear in mysterious and peculiar ways particularly when Blavatsky visited Sinnett and his wife. For example, one note was found high up in the branches of a tree. Other odd ( or not so odd) things would happen when the Mahatmas worked through Blavatsky such as a cup and saucer materializing under a bush and a missing broach materializing in Mrs. Sinnett’s pillow. So far I’m not buying it.
The Show begins:
In 1882, the Theosophical Society moved its headquarters to Adyar and by 1884, the society began to attract many Europeans along with Indian disciples. This two year time period is when the Mahatma letters really made their debut. They would frequently appear in cabinet known as the “Shrine” which was located in the “Occult Room” conveniently located adjacent to Blavatsky’s bedroom. It is reported that they, “also fell from the ceiling in various places and appeared in the margins of sealed correspondence.” Despite this wondrous affair there was trouble. Two disgruntled employees of the society claimed they had participated in ‘faking’ psychic phenomena connected to verifying the existence of the Mahatmas (big surprise there). Alexis and Emma Coulomb claimed the, “Shrine was designed to allow letters to be inserted through a sliding panel in the back, making them appear to have materialized paranormally (P.T. Barnum anyone?). The accusations received plenty of attention.
The Plot thickens:
Enter Richard Hodgson of the British Society for Psychical Research who was sent to India to investigate. Upon conclusion, Hodgson claimed the whole affair to be fraudulent and the Theosophists refuted stating that his report was based on “lies” and could not be taken seriously. There is fraudulence here if you consider that in June 1883, Olcott received letters giving instructions to forge letters intended for Sinnett allegedly from Master Koot Hoomi stating, “… put your whole soul in answer to A.P.S. (Sinnett) from K.H. (Koot Hoomi). Upon this letter are hinged the fruits of the future. Let it be one that can be shown with honour to everyone… Be careful about letter to Sinnett. Must be a really adeptic letter.” We got em now or do we? After Hodgson’s investigation, Blavatsky stopped performing paranormal feats associated with the “Masters.” Did she let followers go on believing because she was trying to protect the identities of real men?
More Soup:
In the midst of all the brouhaha of Hodgson’s investigation, Olcott began blaming Blavatsky for the “disgrace caused by phenomena she had performed in the Masters’ names.” By 1885, Blavtsky complained to Sinnett that Olcott had been “cautiously admitting that I have substituted bogus for real phenomena; that I am suffering at times from mental aberration.” She believed Olcott was professing himself to be “the first chief confederate in the alleged bogus phenomena.”
How had the whole ‘idolatry’ of real men gotten out of hand? Was the denial of the Masters by investigator Hodgson was actually preferred by Blavatsky in lieu of the truth behind the disguises being revealed?
Blavatsky… Olcott … who’s to blame?
Blavatsky states: “Is it Olcott’s fault? Perhaps to a degree. Is it mine? I absolutely deny it, and protest against the accusation. It is no one’s fault. Human nature alone, and the failure of modern society and religions to furnish people with something higher and nobler than craving after money and honors – is at the bottom of it. Place this failure on one side, and the mischief and havoc produced in people’s brains by modern spiritualism, and you have the enigma solved.”
She later recanted and said: “If anyone is to blamed, it is I. I have desecrated the holy Truth by remaining too passive in the face of all this desecration, brought on by too much zeal and false ideas.”
Dessert:
It is important to note that in 1986, the Society for Psychical Research published a critique by handwriting expert Vernon Harrison that discredited “crucial elements” of Hodgson’s report. Accordingly, the Theosophists took it as complete vindication.
Hindsight aperitif:
- It is believed that her mentor of twenty years, Copt Magician Paolos Metamon was probably the inspiration for Master Serapis Bey.
- Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, the founding president of the Amritsar Singh Sabha relates to the Master Koot Hoomi via the writings of Olcott and Blavatsky.
- Maharajah Ranbir Singh of Kasmir resembles El Morya because he was committed to promoting brotherhood. His subjects were Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, and Sikhs
“No man can teach another truth if the truth does not manifest itself in and through him. Do not follow those that in a loud voice claim to be able to show you the truth, but seek for the truth for itself …" ~ The Talking image or Urur by Franz Hartmann
HUey???
HUey???
As you have noticed …
Kut HU mi
Dwjhal K HU l
Question Authority.
Always Question!
Always!
"Authority" is a bunch of "hooey" anyway!!!
Trust Thy Self.
Question Authority.
~Peace~
Seems to be the case …
Yes, always question even if you feel the heat! I wonder how many people are aware of all the hundreds of "take" on the ascended masters there are on the net nowadays!
Blowing the whistle …
Great investigation Logos. I have always asked these questions myself mainly because I have always felt that madame was very theatrical.
@Shabdaji – leave it to you to find the "HU" correlation!
@Green Moon – I have been questioning authority for years and consider myself a system buster!
Good stuff guys!
hee hee
We do have a stellar group don't we Li?
Hi Logos.Interesting blog.I
Hi Logos.
Interesting blog.
I had a conversation with a person that believed strongly in the Ascended Masters idea on another site. Out of curiousity, I asked him to give a general definition of what an ascended master was actually supposed to be. His answer was:
"Ascended Master – a being who has become Self-Realized and serves humanity;
a being who has raised his/her vibration to a sustained frequency of light.
He/she can come and go at will from the earth plane without the Birth//Death cycle.
Self-Realization – the awareness of our complete and indivisible union with God,
which we are. This also means that the ego-self has come to know itself so clearly,
so lovingly, so wisely that it is no longer run by the Shadow.
When one is in the Illumined State or Self-Realized,
there ceases to be any more inner or outer drama.
The personal ego-self has surrendered fully and willingly into the loving embrace of the Soul"
From this answer I notice that what he has done is simply to use the ascended masters as a modern system of Gods/Goddesses. He's replaced all the older systems with it for his own life. There's nothing wrong with this idea, if a person chooses to do this. We all still have Free Will after all. But why not just call them "Gods/Godesses"? Why is a new label needed? It seems that the new label is just a point of confusion for a lot of people. Many of the so-called ascended masters have been called "gods" for years. Jesus for example has fit this description with the christians. Is putting these characters as gods into a different package beneficial? I don't think so. But that's just me.
"If it ain't broke……don't fix it."
Still a good blog though. 🙂
Yee – Ha
A "different label" indeed Digger! Now you're gettin it! If you take the time research much of these systems like Theosophy, you come to find that there is not only a good deal of repackaging but also a lack of tracking down an original source. Whenever and wherever I have posted this blog it has met with both positive and negative controversey – the negative brand (and by that I mean the opinions of those who think I have commited some travesty against their belief system) has been particularly brutal. That of course just leads me to more questions. The fact remains that these Ascended Masters have never been proven and Madame's dog and pony shows did not help credibility. I do think that the hype surrounding St. Germain exceeds all the others but that is a story for another day.
So back to the proverbial square one as I get ready to stir another pot.
I'm grinning though!!!
varying ways to take the meaning of
what a Soul is, in relation to the Godhead, as well as in comparison to or against….i see this concept reflected invarying ways on any point concerning the divinity of the Soul, or EACH Soul more specifically and that that divinity originates from within the Godhead, and also that Soul is an emnation of the Godhead, via the Spirit , which is viewed to be as Sound in the primary sense, and as Light secondarily, thus the terms about vibratory rate etc. are correct in the case of an individual Soul as would be the case for the Divne Shabd as the means for Divinity to travel ITS circuit throughout the Whole as a complete system….from this point of view, the Soul is visible clearly as the true self, and also as a drop from the Ocean, in the same way the Divinity within can communicate TO us, meaning that God Itself can, and does communicate, if only we're listening…in my opinion, this is the most important feature of that spiritual point, that Soul is Godlike, not a God, but very much Godlike…
all Gods/Goddesses
are generally, throughout religion and history known to be ASPECTS of a Singular Creator, and while this seems a rather advanced idea for shamanistic groups, i dont think that is necessarily always the case…as in the case of Hinduism, and we have members we can ask as to the correctness of this idea, that the various Gods and Godesses, that number in excess of 33,000, are but aspects of Brahma, so while given individualism in one sense, they are actually denied it in a way from another simultaneous view, which demonstrates the Whole of things as they are, in this reality.
While i cant claim this to be a generally correct view at any point in time, it is at the very least a possibility, even if it cant be proven or even hinted at in any factual way.
Mastership of the lower planes, as is denoted by Self realization, is the awareness of the self as Soul, the true self, and an atom of God, thus the " I am That! " quote attributed to Sat Nam, and it is this that is being used as the staple from whgich to determine an ascended master, however, the most important distinction is that they are a master that is no longer living in the physical body, and thus can NOT teach any but those whom they had already initiated. These are utterly useless to a living human, who needs a working Master in the physical form to provide initiation, as well as karmic guidance and both inner and outer guidance and balance so as to bring about the complete burnoff in a single lifetime.
33,000 etc.
In response to Shabda's comments.
Hinduism believes in the existence of only one God (Brahman) but known under different names and forms. Hindus believe that God has many attributes or forms, each of which can be the focus of a person’s religious devotion. God therefore can be pictured in as many forms a person chooses. This religious attitude and the fact that many local or regional practices (including beliefs) have been incorporated into Hinduism allow for a diverse range of ritual practices.
Brahman (ब्रह्मन् brahman) is the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the Universe. Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead. In the Upanisads the sages teach that brahman is infinite Being, infinite Consciousness, and infinite Bliss.
Digressing with this, yet it needs to be said:
Your last comment Shabda reflects what I have believed for years about where the concept of Theosphy led. L. Ron Hubbard believed he was to fill the shoes of Aleister Crowley after his demise. His son L. Ron Hubbard Jr. who changed his name to Ron deWolf exposed the psychopathic origins of Scientology.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/scien240.html
hehe
Thanks India – winking at you and smiling!
Is El Morya actually Gulab Lal Singh Rajput??
[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_large”,”fid”:”10588″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]
Theosophy and Neo Theosophy???
> fyi — the Ascended Masters connections, with New Thought, Guy Ballard and Mesmer and more ….
I didn't realise there was a connection between theosophy and the new thought movement people, and I didnt quite understand the two main groups in theosophy after HPB passed away. eg
The organization originating from the faction of Olcott and Besant is based in India and known as the Theosophical Society – Adyar, while the organization managed by Judge is known nowadays simply as the Theosophical Society, but often with the specification, "international headquarters, Pasadena, California."
The Theosophical Society – Adyar is the group denounced as Neo-Theosophy by those who are followers of William Q. Judge and the original teachings of Madame Blavatsky; they do not accept what they regard as the Neo-Theosophical teachings of Annie Besant, Henry Olcott, and C. W. Leadbeater.
and
Dion Fortune and Aleister Crowley were also influencers of (and influenced by) the leading edge of the theosophical movement, which in turn influenced Anton LaVey's Satanism, L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, Wicca, and the modern New Age and New Thought movements. (Alice Bailey introduced the term New Age).[8] Some examples of Neo-Theosophists today include Benjamin Creme and Douglas Baker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Theosophy