Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00153)

Thanks Peter for your notes.

I think you are as free to embrace your Mahatmas as I am to 
reject them. 

These feelings of ours must come about from personal search 
and exploration and from what I've seen from my perspective, 
there is hardly anything produced in the name of the "mahatmas' 
that measures up, in my view.

The sinnet letters for instance are full of tactical advice about 
dealing with the English occult scene almost a hundred years 
ago..... how thrilling and uplifting... but you call them as you see 
them, right?

- Art


--- 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