Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00132)

Art,

I haven't had much time to respond to mails in this list. But I will
respond to yours in full soon. In the meantime...

You write:

> I think I would differ with you on the concept of
> "Mahatmas" as it is usually understood in
> theosophic circles.

I'm not sure that we would differ, Art. My concept of a Mahatma is similar
to what you describe, namely:

> I would urge the classical concept of Mahatma as a
> great soul or Siddhi an accomplished, perfected being that is
> understood in India/Tibet

This is exactly what HPB's Mahatamas were. They were living Adepts with
physical bodies. They were not Kamarupa shells lacking in physical body and
higher principles that appear in the sceance room.

Meetings with those Adepts in their physical bodies were recorded by HPB,
Olcott, Damodar, Ramiswamier and others. That they were able to project a
'mayavi rupa' to appear to different people at different times whilst being
in their physical body in another place is consistent with the Siddis an
accomplished Adept is able to use. We find such feats attributed to many
great Yogis of India throughout history. This is exactly what the Buddha
and the Bodhisattvas of higher grades are credited with being able to carry
out in Buddhism. References to creating such "bodies made with mind" can be
found for example in such Buddhist texts as the Sri-mala-sutra and many
others(see "The Lions Roar of Queen Srimala" written around 200 CE,
translated by Alex & Hideko Wayman).

That one or more of the Mahatmas known to HPB should be able to project such
a Mayavi Rupa and converse with one of their Chelas in another country, is
no different to Ramana Maharshi being able to do the same as recorded by
Paul Brunton, when Ramana Maharshi appeared to him and gave him instructions
whilst they were living on two different continents. Other disciples of
Ramana Maharshi recorded similar events. Yogananda Paramahamsa recorded
similar events. Disciples of Sri Aurobindu, recorded similar experiences.
Its a very long list if we put our mind to it.

If you want to suggest HPB's teachers were no more than spirit guides like
those found in spiritualism, then you need to explain what is the difference
between Paul Brunton's conversations with Ramana Maharshi, and all the other
examples in Hindu and Buddhist literature with those recorded by HPB and
other Chelas and lay-chelas of the Mahatmas.

Many of the most important and sacred sciptures in Mahayana and Tibetan
Buddhism are said to have been transmitted by the Buddha, long after the
death of his physical body, through one or another of his non-physical
bodies, eg Nirmanakaya, Sambhogakaya. These are all part of the "classical
concept of the Mahatma ... as found in India/Tibet" that you refer to. Are
you going to suggest these sacred scriptures must also be the result of
spirit guides as found spiritualism. If not what is the difference between
these references and what HPB and other Chelas record.

What about those most important texts recorded by the great Asanga of
Mahayana Buddhism, said to have been transmitted to him by the Bodhisattva
Maitreya, who has yet to incarnate in this Cycle?

Art, I seem to remember that one of the other things you have urged in the
past is that the TS drop HPB as no longer relevant to Theosophy. Does your
desire to portray the Mahatmas as nothing more than the kama-rupa shells of
spiritualism have any bearing on this?

...Peter



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur E. Gregory [mailto:arthra999@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 13 November 2000 16:47
> To: theos-talk@egroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World Concept of Mahatma:
>
>
> --- In theos-talk@egroups.com, "Peter Merriott" <nous@b...>
> wrote:
> > > Words can only cover so much Peter, but this is to me an
> > > example of the genius of Madame Blavatskaya and we can
> > > appreciate it in its own right.
> >
> > Yes, I agree with you, Art. The whole of the Secret Doctrine
> from which
> > this passage comes is an example of the "genius" of HPB and
> the Mahatmas who
> > together produced that work.
> >
>
> Thanks for your insights Peter.... I think I would differ with you on
> the concept of "Mahatmas" as it is usually understood in
> theosophic circles. To me the Mahatmas of the early
> theosophic movement are very close to spirit guides in the
> Spiritualist movement and that's just the way I see it. many of the
> early theosophists were spiritualists and frequented seances
> and this tinged the Mahatma concept with a kind of flavor that to
> me has thrown many of our most valuable contributions into
> disrepute. I would urge the classical concept of Mahatma as a
> great soul or Siddhi an accomplished, perfected being that is
> understood in India/Tibet as opposed to the quasi spirit guides
> of our theosophic antecedents in the TS.
>
> - Art
>
>
>
>
>
>