RE: Concept of Mahatma
Nov 20, 2000 03:06 PM
Nov 20 2000
I wish to say that I heartily endorse what Peter Marriott has to
say on this subject.
Those who are real students of Theosophy know that it presents
only the description of those events in History and those Rules
of conduct which are universal and provable by anyone for
Theosophy does not require that person attest to this or that, or
reject this or that, or recommend this or that. It does object
most strongly to unverifiable opinions.
Opinions to be useful ought to be matters of demonstration and
From: Blavatsky Archives [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 10:21 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Re: Concept of Mahatma
From: "Peter Merriott" <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: Theos-World Re: Concept of Mahatma:
Sent: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 16:03:59 -0000
> I think you are as free to embrace your Mahatmas as I am to
> reject them.
As far as I know we all agree with you on this. We are each free
as we wish. But our freedom to 'accept' or 'reject' is not the
The motto of the TS states, "There is no religion higher than
not "There is no truth higher than what we want to believe."
When you write into these Theosophical forums saying you urge
reject HPB's teachers as nothing more than the spooks from
when you say they are not real Mahatmas and nothing they have
measures up to what a real Mahatma would write; when you accuse
being snide-ish and causing divisions between people... then I
only reasonable to expect that your fellow theosophists will ask
offer something to substantiate those views. After all, it is the
who were the real founders and inspiration of the original TS.
But so far you have not offered one single thing to substantiate
Apparently HPB's teachers are all that you describe because...
because you say they are.
All the evidence to the contrary counts for nothing because...
because you say it doesn't.
You appear to have side-stepped answering any of the issues,
testimony put to you by members of this group *in response* to
said above. Please note the latter. It was you who raised this
the reality of the Mahatmas existence. There was no sign on the
For some time now you have tried to present students of HPB and
as stuck in the past. Yet you extoll the virtues of studying what
"real Mahatmas" like:
> "Ramakrishna, Ramana and Aurobindo [who] 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.
I like to study these too, along with many others, and as pointed
you, what you have written about them could equally be said of
HPB and the
Mahatmas. But Art, you need to know that all of these Yogis you
dead, at least physically, and have been for some time. The idea
weighing up their words of yester-year means one is in the
weighing up the teachings of HPB and the Mahatmas means that one
stuck in the past makes no sense.
Some months ago, in this group, you were advocating that the TS
writings and teachings of HPB and the Mahatmas as outdated and no
relevant to Theosophy. Your idea of what counted as relevant for
was a group you ran for 18 months studying "Jesus, Sun of God,".
You also say you love "Viveka-Chudamani". Yes, I do too, and
and to hear someone comment on these who really knows his/her
But Art, Jesus lived 2000 years ago and "Viveka-Chudamani", "The
of Wisdom", by Sankaracharya was written around 1200 years ago.
again, to say that studying HPB and the writings of the Mahatmas
is to be
stuck in the past, yet to study 'Jesus' and the works of
be living in the present, has no real basis.
Your latest advice to Nick is that he and others should move on
perspectives offered by HPB and the Mahatmas a few generations
write to do so "means breaking the old patterns and trying new
what are these new patterns you think Nick should try? One such
pattern is to listen to Monks teaching doctrines promulgated by
2500 years ago!! Yes, that sounds really "new". Also, did it ever
you that you might be telling this to someone who has been a
of Buddhism for many years?
Art, I don't believe there are members in this group who have any
at all in converting you into a belief in the Mahatmas. Nor has
who has written here shown they regard a belief in their
existence as an
entry qaulification to the study of Theosophy. I certainly don't,
neither will I stand by while you 'rubbish' them.
Conversely, you HAVE shown an interest in persuading people away
and her Teachers.
My own personal view is that it matters not whether a 'teaching'
years old or 100,000 years old. It is our own individual
'the work' that either brings the underlying truth 'alive' in
moment or leaves it like a dead letter of the past. I maintain
this is true
whether we call ourselves Buddhists, Hindus, Theosophists or by
label and whether we have gurus or not. Thus, what matters most
of all is
that we get on with the genuine study and apply ourselves to the
Daniel H. Caldwell
You can always access our site by
simply typing into the URL address
bar the following 6 characters:
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.NET
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application