Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00174)

Art:
>never in any lecture I heard or study that I
> attended in those years, mostly from the late fifies or early sixties
> was there a statement of belief or required faith of belief of the
> physical existence of these mahatmas... now I certainly read
> about them, but no one ever asked me to subscribe to this
> belief, but from what at least three of us are saying it would
> appear to be an article of faith or belief.

Nor has anyone here and now asked for, or expected, your belief in the
Adepts. Belief based on the ignoring of evidence seems to be your
preference. I prefer the opposite; confidence based on testimony of
witnesses -- such testimony being a large part of my confidence in the
Brothers physical existence.

> By the way, my understanding of nastika that was referred to
> earliar is today spelled in most circles as "naustika" and refers
> to one who does not subscribe to the Vedas. It is not necessarily
> referring to one who is an atheist, but is used by Hindus to refer
> to Buddhists and Jains.

My understanding is similar, but the Sanskrit word is still transliterated
naastika (the "aa" standing for a macron over the "a"). Perhaps you are
transliterating from Hindi or Prakrit or ??? I think the word literally
means "denier", the opposite of aastika which means "believer". The denial &
belief in this case revolving around the Vedas & the Vedic traditional
teachings, according to Manu (2, 11). It can also mean denial of Indian
spiritual realms, or the Hindu gods. This latter meaning would apply to the
dominant Western religion, Xtianity and materialistic atheists around the
planet. It is in the latter sense that the Mahatma of the Circle was
referring.

Nicholas