Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00144)

Dear Art,

First of all, no one is expected to accept that any person is a Mahatma on
the evidence of other people. Each is entitled to his/her private views.
But since you publicly urge people to reject the Theosophical Mahatmas as no
better than the spirit guides of spiritualism, which are no more than empty
kama-rupa shells, it is important that you offer something to substantiate
your claims. So far you have offered nothing beyond 'they are because I say
they are'.

You say the kind of Mahatmas you urge people to accept are those based on
the concept of a Mahatma as found in Indo/Tibetan traditions of perfected
beings.

I put a number of points to you in my post illustrating that the
Theosophical Mahatmas of HPB are indeed such as are found in the Indo /
Tibetan traditions of perfected beings. They are incarnated human beings,
met with in the flesh (and otherwise) by various people, and possessing the
siddhis (occult powers) commonly associated with Mahatmas of their rank. I
also presented you with similar examples across the various spiritual
traditions, and offered contextual support from the Buddhist sutras that the
ability to create and project such 'mind bodies' is traditionally associated
with such Mahatmas. I also asked you to explain why we should accept that
all the others were genuine with the exception of the Theosophical Mahatmas
whom, according to you, we should regard merely as the spooks found in
spiritualist sceances.

You have not dealt with any of those questions, Art.

Instead you change tack by saying you now reject the Mahatmas because of the
contents of their letters. But apart from vague accusations, once again
there is no substance offered to support your view.

You say:
> 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".

This is also my position along with having read and studied the writings of
the Mahatmas for over 33 years.

> 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.

Again, I agree, the same could be said of the Mahatmas. There were
physically incarnated human beings. Meetings with them in the flesh and
otherwise were recorded by those who did so. We have access to some of the
writings and impressions left of people who met physically met them. In
addition they left writings of their own, and gave written testimony that
they collaborated with HPB in writing the Secret Doctrine & so on. Thus we
can weigh up all of their teachings and accept or reject their words etc
etc.

> 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.

Yes, I have compared all these teachers and NO, I don't get your point, and
I doubt that any fair minded person who has seriously read and studied those
letters would either. Your statement above suggests you have very little
familiarity with with what is in the Mahatma Letters or the nature of the
work they were involved in with Sinnett.

When you are willing to replace empty accusations with views that have some
substance I will be happy to correspond further with you on this topic.

...Peter