I don’t want to talk formally about the Mahatma Letters so much this morning, but I would like us to discuss them. I’ll just remind us all of a few elementary historical facts. H.P.Blavatsky was a unique creature, who, after various lives in the past, was born in Russia under supervision. The incarnation was an arranged one, and from childhood on she was under the custody - the charge - of this Adept who was a major force in founding. The Theosophical Society, whom we call the Master Morya. That is his family name, a very noble name, the noblest name in India - that is in late Vedic and early Buddhist India. By guardianship I mean that arrangements were made so that she would be perpetually under supervision, and anything that might happen to her was instantaneously reported to the authorities so that she would be protected; and yet she would have all the freedom that she needed to grow up as herself, you see. Nobody wants slaves in this kind of work.

And she did grow up; and all that can be read extensively in Incidents in the Life of Madame Blavatsky, which I forgot to mention the other day as one of the source books - fascinating stuff. Now in the course of her life she went, as you know, finally got to Tibet, which she aspired to do for many years and finally she got there. This was after she met Master Morya in the flesh in London. And later on had a visit with him in the moonlight in Brighton, of all places. She got into Tibet, and there she went through the years of training sufficient to permit her to come into the Western world again and speak on behalf of these people.

Now, in order to qualify for that, a person has to be sufficiently developed so that the Masters can arrange - it’s in the Letters, you read it there - to sequester a portion of the person’s psychological structure, which remains in Tibet. This is different from the previous arrangement that I’m talking about. And at the same time, as you’ll find in one of the Letters, this makes such a person a kind of psychological cripple. Now it sounds horrible, doesn’t it? Sounds monstrous. But you have to deal with things as they are whether you think they’re monstrous or not.

The reason for this is that the Organization of the Masters is so important that under no conditions must its ultimate secrets be revealed or its processes impaired, excessively impaired. And these are the rules, that’s all. What do we mean by this? Well, it means, don’t you know, that the individual for all critical events is available for direct operations, in which case they act as a total personality, the whole thing is then fused again for such purposes. But during times when the Adepts are not carrying on through that individual certain special processes and so on, this division takes place again and the person moving around in the world just has to live as best as he or she can. That’s all. Now for studious purposes the reunion of the total personality can be sustained for hours on end because, don’t you see, if an individual is writing quietly in some sequestered place where the chance of interruption and so on is very small, this vital part can be let out, as it were, to collaborate in the job without much risk. But when, as in the case of HPB’s early work, she was moving around in all kinds of circles, you know - dinner parties, liquor, tobacco, trains, all sorts of things for hours on end - maybe days on end - this kind of divorced condition went on. And she was tempestuous by nature anyhow. And so the tempests and the outbursts and all kinds of things which - they had their place too - but which don’t represent the total being, were experienced by all kinds of folk. Well, that’s how she was.

Question:Aren’t there one of two other things?

Fritz: Oh boy! it’s a fabulous compendium of occult knowledge. You see it was written in privacy.

Question: Although I hold HPB and A.P. Sinnett and Olcott in great esteem, I’ve always wondered why it is that they - why it says in the Letters that they were the best material available. Because they did have a few defects, and Sinnett, of course I should hardly . . . it was because Sinnett was so ..... that the Mahatma Letters had to be written .... not saying anything in a critical way.

Fritz: Wonderful question

Voice: Can you repeat the question?

Fritz: The question is - in the Mahatma Letters They hold these people in high esteem and say that they are the best They can find and so on, but at the same time - may I put it this way, I’ll paraphrase you a little bit - they turn out to be quite a job lot. I’m putting it much more harshly than you do, but anyway that’s the gist of your remark, isn’t it? Well, this is the most fascinating question of the lot, thank you. Because, you see, it raises the question of the relationship of more or less ordinary people, I mean people involved in the world, to the Masters who are not involved in the world. You see it raises that question. And this is the great question. Well not, I will start with a philosophical question that will become immediately practical. You know lots of people think that philosophy isn’t practical. But the truth is that philosophy is the most practical - everything else is secondary. Just put that in your pipe and smoke it - if you are a smoker! Let me explain something. The Masters, and I mean now the Dhyân Chohans - I don’t even mean Koothomi - are the only beings who are absolutely free. See that? Everything below a Dhyân Chohan - that is a radiant Lord who only exists in the utterly non-material - everything below that level from the highest planes of nature down, anybody bound in that system here even if he’s spiritual as heaven knows what, is bound, and is not free. And since the object of all Adepts and all highest Beings is this freedom, now let me say something to you - the last thing the Masters will ever do is impair your freedom - that is the last thing They will ever do. You can be a darn fool on the largest possible scale, and They will graciously permit you to be that, see? The one thing They won’t do is to impair your freedom. Now what does this mean? It means They can only work with volunteers - that’s the first proposition, you see. They’re restriction is to volunteers. Now how many people are volunteering in your circle to be part of this show? Not many. And people read this book all the time, you see that, and they think about it and everything, and they remain exactly as they were practically for years on end. They don’t volunteer, they don’t do anything much. Maybe they feel better - fine. They’re more interested, they’re more curious. The book’s been read by thousands of people; but the number of people who say:”Boy, this is the biggest cause I ever heard of” and who pitch in and give relentless cooperation is very few. So right away, you see, thousands of talented people are out of the picture. Am I clear so far?

Now there’s another thing. The circle of people that are really qualified to do any cooperating is very largely restricted by a practical consideration. It follows that Karma is real in human relations. I mean if you believe in Karma, you know the Law of Justice operates in human relations. Now if anybody is sufficiently important spiritually and intellectually and morally and so on, to have been near the Masters in the past, the likelihood is that he will be near the Masters now and in the future. I mean if he amounts to anything, keeps it up, right? Isn’t that natural? Then don’t you see the Masters are restricted further by the circle that is by habituation near to the Masters in the past. Now Sinnett in his last life - I’ll just give you a fact - was a consul in Rome during one of the late Emperors, about 100 years A.D. And the Master Koothoomi had been what’s called the ......(?).... Flamen de Allis (?) in Rome at that time, a kind of Bishop you know - I don’t mean Roman Catholic, but old Roman religion Bishop, so to speak. And they had been very close to each other in a very worldly and corrupt society. Now this and other associations with Master Koothoomi in other lives had given Mr Sinnett privileges. This is a privilege, you see, to do the job. You see the drift of all this? It incorporates new principles of relationship - nothing to do with intellectual ability, or any such worldly status.

Question: You mean to serve is a privilege not lightly given.

Fritz: Oh yes, yes. And this is unique. To be in on a thing like this in the early days is really something. You don’t take Tom, Dick and Harry for that! Now Hume is another story. Hume was an accident, so to speak, in this way. The Masters wanted Hume to be used, but They didn’t want him informed. They knew this risk, you see, and Sinnett is reproved in one of the Letters because he told Hume everything, or far too much. And They had to keep telling him “don’t do this” you see, and so Hume got hold of a lot of language and notions he was completely unfitted to understand. And with his intellectualism running loose, you see, he thought: “I know more than Sinnett”, But morally he was not anywhere near Sinnett - I don’t mean morally in the sense of ordinary morals - spiritually mostly. Nowhere near. Well, Hume was all right. They made what They could of him. They sent him as a spy to the Indian National Congress. It’s a very complicated question that you raise, you see, very complicated.

Voice:I probably would not have got such an answer anywhere else.

Now this brings a point home to us. You take this property right here - I’m going to be very practical now - this property has been going for thirty years. And there are present people that have been battling all those thirty years. They are contributing their money, their abilities, their patience - and I may say their impatience - and their tenacity of purpose, and their confidence in one another, and God knows what, huh? And they have got something wonderful, see. One of the most marvelous spots in the United States. Believe me I see a lot of them. It’s beautiful, it’s sequestered, it’s - although there have been battles on this ground they have never been vicious, horrible battles, see, that I know anything about - it’s really very wonderful. And we have friends here like that tree - you know you just can’t win that kind of circumstances easily, that’s hard work. Well, here we are. We’ve been at it thirty years and still the number’s pretty small - the people who mean business about this - very small. Why is this? Well, that’s because what’s real is hard to understand. And the number of people who want to do anything about it that do understand is small, and we’re all locked up in the world one way or another, we have our Karma and our problems and everything else. We have duties, sacred duties you can’t lay down. You can see it’s very difficult to do anything along these lines, it’s not easy. It’s not like starting a factory or some ordinary school - an art gallery, there are bushels of artists, ten cents a dozen, and they could start an art gallery good, bad, or indifferent. But Occultism, this ultimate truth, that is the most tough thing to possess and use. So there are very few, that’s all. Were they remarkable? History will have to tell us how remarkable were Blavatsky and Sinnett.

Question: Did the Masters ever give permission for those Letters to be made public?

Fritz: That’s a question I can’t answer, you see, because I wasn’t involved in that. The Master Koothoomi says once: “ They will never be published with my permission”. Well, what does that mean? I don’t know. People say he must have given permission because he could otherwise have had them destroyed quietly.

Question: You said that the Masters never interfere with our free will.

Fritz: That’s part of the answer. But you see there’s implied in this also, why didn’t They have nice little fire in Sinnett’s apartment if They don’t want them published, and have them burned up and that would be the end of it. Well you see, maybe they were published without the Master Koothoomi’s permission. And maybe He grew to a state of indifference. Maybe it was decided they are useful. They are fabulous. I can’t say, you see. I wasn’t in on that. I don’t know.

Question: Well, Fritz, considering that they are so useful, why do you think they have been so neglected in the Society. You almost never hear of them. We do hear about The Secret Doctrine a lot - but this, not often. Now why is that?

Fritz: Well, it’s a very complicated question. It came up a little while ago, and we answered only a small part - we discussed only a small part of it, I’ll try to be more sufficient in what I’m going to say now. I’m going to stand up for it too! First of all, we must understand very clearly that these being letters to individuals who are putting questions, and since the original letters are often lost, you only get one part of the story. Second - as they are letters, the Master is always trying to correct the errors in the interrogator’s mind, and He overdevelops the thing that will correct it for him . . . so the result is that the book is filled with a vast collection of oddments. Some are exaggerations of small points in order to tell Sinnett something, others are tremendous truths in a couple of words, see?

There’s another thing too we must remember, there is no English language for most of what They are talking about, right? Yet They try to do it in English as best They can. Oh, it’s really a terrible business. Now when this was all finished - They stopped writing to Sinnett about 1885 finally - They had effectively stopped before that actually, weren’t telling him much anyhow - They had now Madame Blavatsky writing The Secret Doctrine and everything that’s mentioned in here that They cared to develop fully, They developed rather adequately there. And what might be called the conceptual system is in The Secret Doctrine. You can come back from the S.D. to this and get immense new wealth out of it. For example, in the S.D. nothing is said about the inner kingdom. I don’t mean inner round, that’s another proposition altogether. Nothing is said about the inner kingdom. But it’s mentioned in here, in fact it’s identified. And I might talk about it some morning - it’s kind of interesting. Scientifically it can now be examined a little bit.

Question: Fritz, my reaction to some of the Letters was that Koothoomi said “they” or “we” I presume meaning the Brotherhood of Buddhists, said They were Buddhists. Is this so?

Fritz: This is somewhere where you can at last say yes - but with some explanations. Yes, that’s a fact.

Question: Alright, then on the other hand, They say elsewhere that Their primary task is to free man from this tremendous illusion of religion and God and the exploitation that’s taken place in religion and so on. How do these add up?

Fritz: When I said yes a moment ago that They are Buddhists, you understand I meant They are followers of Buddha, and not followers of Buddhism. Let me explain more fully what is involved in Austie’s fascinating point. First of all I have to prescribe some Theosophy as fact and you do what you like with it. We are now in the middle of the Aryan race. And the humanity to which we belong is pretty well all here and present on the earth - not all, but the vast majority. They are not all physically incarnated. The bulk of them are dead, but they will come back later. This humanity is a colossal fact - absolutely stupendous fact! It consists of many thousands of millions of Monads who have achieved the business of being human beings. And this is a stupendous fact in nature. I mean, we may look like a job lot, but don’t worry, potentially this is an enormous proposition. Now, that humanity has got to produce its own leaders. It cannot live forever on other Beings. It has its own creative task in the cosmos to perform. It must produce its own free beings. The first one that it produced was Gautama Buddha. And the moment He appeared on the scene after lives and lives and lives of endeavor that when he achieved this final level of a Dhyâni Buddha - that is an independent intelligence in Parabrahman that need never surrender and presumably never will surrender His individuality - I don’t want to say individuality, His pointness, the Atman - we had a Being who, having been of our humanity and now the perfection, was the sole model for all who came after. In that sense They are Buddhists. They are not Buddhist in the sense that they follow the Pitikas or believe that the printed doctrines are all that there are or any of this nonsense you see. You know, Buddhism is corrupt too. The Buddha said, make no figure of me. He had not been dead long before seven golden figures were made anyhow etc. etc. You can’t quarrel with that, that’s just fact. Now They are Buddhist in that sense, that They are all part - I mean the bulk of the Hierarchy, not quite all, the Kumaras are from another society than this terrestrial clump of people - but anyhow the bulk of the Brotherhood is staffed, is manned, it consists of people who belong to this show. Now there’s another thing. When Gautama attained, I wont say He was appealed to, but it came about that He reorganized the Hierarchy - He was able to do so you see - for the sake of this humanity. He reorganized it, made some adjustments in the requirements for admission, and other things of that kind, quite profound changes, and in that sense He is almost the Founder of the present state of the organization. They are Buddhist in that sense, right? He hasn’t gone away anywhere. People like that don’t go somewhere you know. And it is in that sense, Austie, I think we should follow this proposition. Now, as for religion as confining us. That’s true. It’s a dreadful business, human beings do this to themselves. You know. they get somebody wonderful that’s a clear flame of some kind, and they don’t even wait till he’s dead to set up meanings of their own. Well, what are you gonna do? We’re all a bunch of fish.

Question: Fritz, could you comment on the Letter that begins on page 52?

Fritz:I’ve got my book. Is that the first edition?

Voice: Yes.

Fritz: I’ve nearly worn the paper in it to shreds now. Oh, the tenth letter where They say They don’t believe in God. That is germane to Austie’s remark . . . That’s a corker, that’s a corker. Listen, we gotta get rid of this word, God - that’s our trouble, see? I’m in favour of it. You know Sinnott says the devil has to be brought back - I’m in favour of that. I mean the other Sinnott, Ed Sinnott. What do you mean by God, see? Well, we all know there are all kinds of ideas of God, a gentleman with a large beard, huh? who spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai. Some think he wears gaiters and a shovel hat, the more orthodox Church of England people. What is God? That’s the ten dollar question. . .

Question: Fritz, this is a very rough chapter, rough on God, as it were.

Fritz: It really is, yes.

Question: How far can we take that?

Fritz: I’d take it literally. It was written for Hume but - you know it was written to blow Hume to smithereens partly - I take it literally. Let me try to explain. Any thought of God which is finite in character, localized in space, conditioned by material process etc etc, is by its nature false. The God that They would like us to talk about if we’re going to have to use the term is infinite absolute perfection, the sole cause of all phenomenal and finite events whatsoever. And that’s obviously not even in this solar system alone, see? Now lots of theosophists think that the Logos is this. If you’re talking about the Logos of the solar system, no. He’s just a local operation. I say that with all reverence, please. But He’s just a local operation. And what They are trying here to do is restore the idea of Parabrahm, right? to restore it to use, not as a term but as a fact. If I had my magnetor here I could explain it again. The entire universe is a magnetic field. There is no where where magnetism in some degree does not obtain. Now there are local intensifications and variations of magnetic fields, but they tie into the infinite lines of force of the infinite field. And thus they are what they are because of the infinite magnetic field. Now the field is also present with the gravitational field - you heard that last night, you see. Gravity and the electromagnetic field are now operating through you in every direction while you sit here. And I don’t know how many dozen other fields. They are all properties of Parabrahman. They are all infinite in extent and perfect in their operation. THIS is God. That’s all They are trying to say. But it isn’t easy to grasp it because then everybody would say: Well how do we get this? You get that by what is really a very simple operation. There is in this infinite reality non-material points. Being non-material, they aint anything, see? You get that? Do they exist? What do you mean by exist? Let’s not go into that. These points can be centers of operation for infinitude. Being infinitely small, they are part of infinity. You can have any number of them. They don’t pack up and occupy any space. These are called mulaprakriti or Paramanus (?) It depends upon whether you’re talking Vedanta or Naiya Vaisheshika. Now, starting with that, one can imagine the focusing of these infinite forces. And out of that focusing come universes, apples, and John Abbenhouse. In that order. You can pick out whether I classified him with apples or the universe! Now this is the simplest idea on God’s earth and that’s why it’s hard to grasp. But we really do not belong to the finite changing universe, we don’t really belong. We’re just messed up in it.

Question: Fritz, I want to ask a loaded question.

Fritz: Come on!

Question: On the basis of what the Master said about religion and the fact that He was one of the individuals who founded the T.S., why does the T.S., why are they - I don’t even like the word tolerant - why do they say: well belong to any religion you want, this is alright, see. Why not say; religion is out? This is the thing we want to get away from. We’ve been exploiting humanity with religion for God knows how long. Why does this have to go on? This seems to me to be a paradox, unless your friend freedom amongst the Society is the thing that’s created this, not They.

Fritz: I think you have a compound question here that has to be divided into two parts. The first is: why do the Masters have anything to do with religion? For instance, Master Koothoomi is visiting Lamas - or used to be - visiting Lamas in Tibet all the time. And nothing is more superstitious than Lamaism. And he’s doing his utmost for all kinds of people mixed up in Lamaism, including the redcaps who are smelly characters some of them, occultly speaking. Anyhow, why? ‘Cause They got duties to do and They gotta help all They can, help where They can. They have to live somewhere. They would get a rougher deal here on Orcas Island, I can tell you, than They do in Tibet. They gotta live somewhere, They gotta work, They have physical bodies, They have duties to perform. You don’t perform duties for humanity without getting down into the muck with them. That’s one thing, another is this - only a very few people can grasp this impersonal principle and conduct their lives accordingly, very few. And the result is if you want to help humanity you have to make a choice - either those few or get on with the general job too. . . . personally I don’t think there’s any harm in it because if you teach the common doctrine that lies behind them all, you might get people to get out of their individual framework. Let’s talk about this more . . . .Well, I tell you Austie, you’ve read Mahatma Letters, haven’t you. Quite a lot.

Voice: Yes sir.

Fritz: What do you think of the Master Koothoomi and the Master Morya, how do They impress you? Are they impressive?

Voice: Well, I think that piece of literature, with the exception of one or two others possibly, is the best piece of literature in the T.S.

Fritz: Hear, hear. I agree.

Voice: But I think it’s too dangerous for most theosophists to read.

Fritz: Right! You said it boy! And how wise They were to try to keep it quiet until They could get hold of some people. In fact what ought to be done is to gradually open up the dynamite in it.

Voice: I think that’s the answer to Gene’s question, why it isn’t better known. Because people are, maybe unconsciously afraid if they get the implications of what is said in some of these things, like the tenth letter for example, it would blast things from stem to stern. And who wants to be blasted?

Fritz: Let me tell you something. I wrote a piece called “Quest for the Quiet Mind” - some of you have read it. And I worked like a dog to state what I said there, and it isn’t so bad. But anyhow I did what I could and it went to Gardner, E.L. Gardner. E. L. Gardner is one of the senior members of the T.S., positively one of the most wonderful people you ever saw. Now what I really did was unlock the basic methodology in science and in the Mahatma Letters - the same methodology really you see. I unlocked that and tried to state it. I got a letter from Gardner. He said to me, he said some nice things about what I’d said and so on, and he said: “It is also the most devastating thing I have read in a long time” - and yet, Mahatma Letters is looking him in the eye every day, and he’s one of our best students of it. It never struck him . . . . (words lost due to tape change) It hit him terribly hard. I agree with you, it’s dynamite.

Question: Fritz, isn’t this right in line with what you mentioned about the London Times when the Masters would not transport it to India because it would completely change the thought processes of people, and that you couldn’t do.

Fritz: Yeah, you couldn’t do it. And those that tried would go crazy etc. etc. I think that is a physical aspect or physical representative of the intellectual dynamite that’s in here. It’s almost a frightening book in this sense that it really gives you the dimensions, the incredible dimensions of being an occultist - or as far as that goes, a really honest human being. It’s out of this world.

Question: It would seem that a complete answer to the question about why the book is not read in the lodges must also include an airing of the reluctance of lodges to put this idea of the Masters before the group as not being a required thing to believe in in order to take part in Lodge activities.

Question: I’d like to answer something to Harry’s question. I don’t think it matters two hoots whether these men are Masters or not. It’s what They have to say, the content of what They’re saying that seems to me to be the thing that matters. If They’re saying the truth, it doesn’t matter who says it, it seems to me. Now maybe Fritz won’t agree with this. I don’t think (indistinct) . . . lend authority by -

Fritz: He’s raising the question of authority, isn’t he? I’ll tell you what I feel about this, and I’ve said it here plenty of times. I think we should be very plain with everybody and say if you haven’t read the history of the Society, if you don’t believe it was founded by people who know a lot more than we know, there’s no question of whether They’re Masters or not, see that, if you don’t believe that, don’t come in here! That’s not a dogma, you see that? That’s historical fact. And why should people join the T.S. to say: “It’s a beautiful idea” when they’re up against this dynamite. We’ve gotta warn them, and say: if you don’t believe this, don’t come around here. If you don’t believe it you’ll think we’re a bunch of nuts. We believe in a lot of bunk, or we’re deceiving them, whatever the case may be, in order to take the collection on Sunday.

Question: Well, what you are really saying is that as a group we’re not very strong -

Fritz: That’s right , I say that. And that’s cause we’re not ready for this strong meat too. I’d like to see every lodge have a class in this stuff. We’ve gone into this in New York for years and it’s done us great good. We still admit people without these warnings and things, I regret to say, in New York because I don’t run the Lodge. I would say to everybody who wants to join the T.S. “I want to know, have you read these books, do you regard these claims, these historical claims, you understand as authentic? If you don’t, I don’t think you should join this. I think you’re committing yourself to something you haven’t committed yourself to.”

Question: I have a lot of respect for what you say, but yet I notice the tone of authority that you’re denying a certain amount of spiritual freedom to those who haven’t made up their mind.

Fritz: Listen, I don’t care what anybody believes. But the T.S. is a working organization you see that, that’s what it is, it’s a working organization trying to get something done. Now why should people join a working organization and say “I have the gravest doubts about its bona fidence.

Voice: Oh no, it....

Voice: I’d like to see a show of hands of the people who recognize the Society as a working organization as far as their own personal belonging is concerned.

Voice: What do you mean by -

Voice: How many people go to lodge meetings to serve, and how many go to get something out of it. If you go to get something out of it, I don’t call it a working organization. If you go there to serve, then I say, show your hand.

(Many voices all at once) You do both, you do both - you go to get, so that you can serve more effectively.

Voice: Well, I’m not saying that no one goes to serve, and perhaps E.S. is the place where all the hands would show, I don’t know.

Fritz: Somebody back there is shyly raising a hand . . . .Now look here, there are two propositions here. One is the Theosophical Society - Harry’s trying to bring that home to us and get a show of hands. The T.S. is a program of work, see. And if you think that is important you certainly want to get in and bat the ball and do the best you can. Unfortunately it also involves living up to a very high standard at the same time, you see. It isn’t like opening a stationery shop or something. It’s a little tougher than that. Alright. But that’s one thing by itself. Now the other thing, which is entirely independent, is your private life, what goes on inside you, you see that. And I don’t give a darn what goes on inside you - I’m your friend you understand - I don’t care what goes on inside you. But if you come out with propositions about this working organization, then it becomes public business. And what the Society is trying to do is plain as could be. There’s no problem in that. It’s trying to teach a realistic philosophy that will restore knowledge to man of what man and the universe really are. That’s what it’s doing. It’s not trying to make a creed or a dogma or private revelations or salvationism or something. I don’t know whether your question can be put though, Harry, because everybody I suppose believes he is being serviceable even in going to a meeting - even if he never does anything else, see what I mean? I doubt whether that is the highest service a person can give, but that unfortunately is prevalent. You know, meeting in a meeting is a beneficial thing in itself - it’s a good thing to have people quietly meeting and studying.

Question: What does Harry mean by service?

Voice: Well, as I see it, maybe this freedom thing gets into it also, we don’t really carry the ball to the world really, and the idea of a working organization implies to me that you’re gearing yourself to carry the ball to the world.

Question: How are we to do that?

Fritz: We’re not carrying it effectively, I agree with Harry there. You weren’t here when I was talking about this - was it yesterday morning? The history of the Society? You know, Harry, the Society has had a tumultuous history - thirty, forty years, very serious problems and so on. It is only now coming out from under them. And at the same time it is only now getting hold of this new material . . . . I agree with you that we haven’t been delivering the ball. But now the question is with regard to the future, and that’s what concerns us here. What do we do in order to make sure that we carry the ball from here on? I don’t think you can do a darn thing except in terms of a program, which the Masters make clear They are conducting anyhow. The are quickening science, They’re guiding science, They’re even releasing inventions thereby . . .. And They are running terrible risks on Their own behalf and on our behalf. And the question is, are we moving fast enough to supply the metaphysics and philosophy that goes with quantum theory, relativity, genetics, etc? We aren’t. Now, if we speeded that up, I believe a tremendous curative, I mean purifying, what shall we say? sort of the issuance of new criteria would come about. And you could work much more effectively.

Well now, I was telling you, Emily is going to parcel this protoplasm stuff, it will come to Seattle, see? Now who is going to study it? That’s the question, who is going to use it? To whom are you going to send notices in the universities and the clubs sometime and say: “We’ve got some very interesting stuff organized around this Seifritz film”. And even if they have seen the Seifritz film, what does it mean. Right? We’re gonna do that also with the air principle. I’m trying my best to buy, and don’t care what it costs, another film, more marvelous than Seifritz’. It’s the first expert photography of the living mitotic process. I don’t know what that means to you. You know, everybody is made out of cells. All cells are reproducing practically all the time. You are a quivering mass of reproduction - you’re reproducing by the million inside you all the time. As cells die, new cells come up. Alright, we got a picture of this. It is unbelievable. It’s a German picture. We’re going to release all of this to the lodge no matter what the universities do with it. They buy these films too but we’re going to release them as a part of a total rational texture of Theosophy, of meaning. If the Seattle and the other lodges pick this stuff up, I think we can deliver the ball.

Question: How in the world do you pursue work with .... high level scientists in the Foundation for Integrated Education without letting them know you’re a theosophist?

Fritz: Oh, they all know I’m a theosophist.

Question: Well, do any of them get interested in Theosophy?

Fritz: Yeah, I tell you, starting with my president, who is Kirtley Mather, and Henry Margenau who is director of research, and these men are fully familiar with my association with the Theosophical Society. And the curious thing is that they respect the Society because I seem to have some clues about how to put learning together. They get the flavour of Theosophy in this way. In other words, if you use the material to prove that there is a growing structure of explanation for the universe, that they prize. Of course, if one came to them and said “Gentlemen you gotta believe in reincarnation, karma, life after death, the astral plane, and avichi” they would politely leave for somewhere else. One doesn’t do that. But then one doesn’t do that anyhow, does one?

Question: But you were speaking of taking Theosophy to the world. And I was thinking of the people that you’re taking theosophy to.

Fritz: Well, I’ll tell what we’re doing and my friends know this perfectly well in the Foundation. We’ve begun this slow preparation of education materials which the theosophical philosophy explains, but which the learned world can explain in detail, not philosophically, but in detail. And by moving along that ridge between the two things, one shall join these worlds together on the facts, on experience, not on hypotheses. Nobody can look at that magnetor without having to say to himself “How the devil does that work?” Now, the physicist tells him the quantum part of it, but we tell him the other part. And I showed that Gestalt psychology stuff yesterday morning. We know quite a lot about that, that the Gestalt people don’t know. And I have this piece on space lattices I showed the other night. We know what that means in a way they don’t know. Because we have a larger and more commodious fabric. If only we could stick it another few years, Austie says I’m always saying this, anyhow I stick it. What else? Anybody want to go wash up before lunch?

Voice: Fascinating Fritz.

Fritz: Thank you. Anyhow the Mahatma Letters are fascinating. READ ‘EM!

Go to Top of this page
Back to our On Line Documents
Back to our Main Page

This document is a publication of the
Canadian Theosophical Association (a regional association of the Theosophical Society in Adyar)
89 Promenade Riverside,
St-Lambert, QC J4R 1A3
Canada

Telephone: 450-672-8577

our website is at : http://www.theosophical.ca

to get to our Contacts-Information list click on:

http://www.theosophical.ca/Contacts-Information.html