Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00145)

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

Everybody seems to want to argue about things that don't matter. The 
Mahatma, or the One, or whatever you want to call him will not leave 
anything to doubt when he comes. It is not anybody's choice who he 
is. He got there by cosmic design and right now nobody believes him 
or listens when he speaks. The show he will present will leave 
nothing to doubt, though. It's the only way in an upside down world.