Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00134)

Thanks Peter for your remarks on the Mahatma concept.

My position on this results from comparing the lives of sages like 
Ramana Maharshi, Shri Aurobindo as well as Sri Ramakrishna 
along with their teachings and sayings recorded with our own 
theosophic "mahatmas". 

Ramakrishna, Ramana and Aurobindo were physically 
incarnated for people to have Darshan with them and today we 
are fortunate to have access to writings and impressions of 
people who met them. In this way we as beings can weigh their 
words and accept or reject their words and apply them or not to 
our own lives and spiritual search.

Compare these teachers with what you have in the Mahatma 
Letters in which the master was heavily involved in the politicized 
occult scene of England and I think you will get my point. On one 
hand you can see the one pointed spiritual genius of Ramana 
and on the other the often spiteful and divisive character of the 
Mahatma letters.

I would not trade at any time a "letter" out of the air from a 
Koothumi for the living presence of my Guru and friend Swami 
Prabhavanada lecturing on the truths of the Vivekachudamani!

I'm only saying what I have found and you are most welcome to 
take issue with it. 

I think with regard to Madame Blavatsky there is still much to 
appreciate, as well as to others such as Col. Olcott who 
contributed much to Buddhism in Sri Lanka. We shouldn't 
minimize the work of GRS Mead and Rudolf Steiner and don't 
forget Krishnamurti!

- Art


--- In theos-talk@egroups.com, "Peter Merriott" <nous@b...> 
wrote:
> 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@y...]
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >