Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00184)

Thank you Daniel for responding for Peter.

The following excerpt explains I think the kind of "objectivity" of 
the Letters in question as written by the 'mahatma" himself in 
Letter 92: 


"The letter in question was framed by me while on a journey and 
on horse-back. It was dictated mentally, in the direction of, and 
"precipitated" by, a young chela not yet expert at this branch of 
Psychic chemistry, and who had to transcribe it from the hardly 
visible imprint. Half of it, therefore, was omitted and the other half 
more or less distorted by the "artist." When asked by him at the 
time, whether I would look it over and correct I answered, 
imprudently, I confess -- "anyhow will do, my boy -- it is of no 
great importance if you skip a few words." I was physically very 
tired by a ride of 48 hours consecutively, and (physically again) -- 
half asleep. Besides this I had very important business to attend 
to psychically and therefore little remained of me to devote to that 
letter. It was doomed, I suppose. When I woke I found it had 
already been sent on, and, as I was not then anticipating its 
publication, I never gave it from that time a thought."

Then: 


"Two factors are needed to produce a perfect and instantaneous 
mental telegraphy -- close concentration in the operator, and 
complete receptive passivity in the "reader" -- subject. Given a 
disturbance of either condition, and the result is proportionately 
imperfect. The "reader" does not see the image as in the 
"telegrapher's" brain, but as arising in his own. When the latter's 
thought wanders, the psychic current becomes broken, the 
communication disjointed and incoherent. In a case such as 
mine, the chela had, as it were, to pick up what he could from the 
current I was sending him and, as above remarked, patch the 
broken bits together as best he might."

Yes here are the broken bits and explanations and the circular 
argumentation. I really dislike this as I know you are totally 
convinced of the existence of the Mahatmas and that for you as 
well as Peter theosophy is a religion like Hinduism or 
Christianity I suppose. But if "truth" is really the highest religion 
then it is to truth we most own and not to fancifulexplanations 
and mere rhetoric!

The issue of these "Mahatmas" I'm afraid has also fueled 
numerous step children such as the Bailey books, Agni Yoga the 
Church Universal and Triumphant and that Maitreya of Mr. Creme
All claiming to be the latest revelation and "truth"... Let me say 
this. I enjoy reading much of this material and there is a glint of 
truth in some of it and it is comforting to think that "Mahatmas" 
are constantly around us sending these messages, but alas 
and alas it is something less than truth.

This is why I feel we're really bringing a kind of disrepute on 
ourselves by continuing this imposter. The rest of the world is 
not so naive as to enlist under this soiled banner. I'm sorry I 
must beso blunt with you,but it is sadly the case...

Sincerely,

Arthur Gregory




--- In theos-talk@egroups.com, "Blavatsky Archives " <info@b...> 
wrote:
> 
> Art,
> 
> I will briefly reply to your latest email addressed to Peter.
> 
> You write to Peter:
> 
> > I respectfully disagree with you regarding the existence of the 
> > "Mahatmas" and suggest as I have that they are figures 
largely 
> > influenced by the spiritualist movement and are lacking in 
> > credibility.
> 
> Art, you certainly have every right to disagree with Peter and to 
> believe as you see fit. I think that is one thing that all of us 
> will agree on. 
> 
> But having said that, let me turn my attention to a few of your 
> statements that deal with the Masters of HPB.
> 
> For example, you say the Mahatmas are figures that lack 
"credibility" 
> but exactly what you mean by that term is unclear to me. I can 
try 
> to guess what you might mean by that but it is fairly 
> imcomprehensible as to what you really mean. 
> 
> I assume also that you have no desire to give us any details 
which 
> would make your position understandable.
> 
> Again, you seem quite reluctant to actually deal with the 
eyewitness 
> accounts of the Theosophical witnesses. You are short on any 
> specifics and instead make generalizations such as:
> 
> > All that's been presented as to the existence of these 
> > :mahatmas" is hearsay and that by those who were rather 
> > believers themselves, so one would have to ask for an 
impartial 
> > witness or observer who would not be partial to the "proof'"...
> 
> Hearsay??? I have no clear understanding or idea of what you 
really 
> mean by this. 
> 
> But are you also EQUALLY sceptical of ALL other witnesses 
who claim 
> to have observed or experienced psychic and/or spirtual 
> manifestations/experiences? There are many materialistic 
minded 
> skeptics of the paranormal and the spiritual who use your 
SAME 
> argument of HEARSAY to pooh-pooh the reality of any thing 
beyond the 
> physical. In other words, do you use your HEARSAY argument 
just on 
> the theosophical witnesses or do you apply it to all witnesses 
of 
> similar happenings?
> 
> For example, Aurobindo claimed he "saw" Koot Hoomi. 
Yogananda claimed 
> to be in contact with Babaji who appears as elusive as the 
> theosophical Masters. Are you equally skeptical of their 
claims?
> Or what about Sai Baba and his paranormal claims? Do you 
also apply 
> the HEARSAY skeptical argument to those claims?
> 
> Art, believe or disbelieve as you see fit. But if you want to 
> communicate your views about HPB's Masters and feel that 
thoughtful 
> students of Theosophy might benefit from your views, you will 
have to 
> present more detailed explanations if you want us to 
understand your 
> position and the reasons why you have adopted that stance. 
> 
> The devil is in the details.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@egroups.com, arthra999@y... wrote:
> > Thanks for your Letter Peter and I hope you can see that I 
have 
> > sincerely replied to your post. Following your remarks , I have 
> > added my own. My best to you and trust that we can be 
friends.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@egroups.com, "Peter Merriott" <nous@b...> 
> > wrote:
> > > Art,
> > > 
> > > > 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 to believe
> > > as we wish. But our freedom to 'accept' or 'reject' is not the 
> > issue here.
> > > The motto of the TS states, "There is no religion higher 
than 
> > truth", and
> > > not "There is no truth higher than what we want to believe."
> > 
> > Truth is as we perceive it Peter. I am willing to concede that I 
> only 
> > know a small portion.
> > 
> > > When you write into these Theosophical forums saying you 
> > urge people to
> > > reject HPB's teachers as nothing more than the spooks 
from 
> > spiritualism;
> > 
> > What I mean to say is that spiritualism seems to have 
influenced 
> > the manifestations of the "mahatmas" in question, such as 
the 
> > mysterious letters that appear from the air. Many early 
> > theosophists we all know were spiritualists and mediums 
> > believing in these things and placing credance in them. 
Today 
> > there would not be so much credibility.
> > 
> > > when you say they are not real Mahatmas and nothing they 
> > have written
> > > measures up to what a real Mahatma would write;
> > 
> > Compare what Shri Aurobindo with Master Kuthumi?
> > 
> > when you accuse them of
> > > being snide-ish and causing divisions between people... 
> > 
> > As in the London Lodge and personally remarking about the 
> > then personages of the occult scene?
> > 
> > then I think it is
> > > only reasonable to expect that your fellow theosophists will 
ask 
> > you to
> > > offer something to substantiate those views. 
> > 
> > Good Peter, I agree and hoped we were speaking of these 
> > things.What I question is the presumed authority of the 
Masters 
> > speaking on matters of strategy in the London Lodge as in 
the 
> > Mahatma Letters. From what I know about spiritually 
advanced 
> > beings they would hardly concern themselves with such trivia 
or 
> > tribble. 
> > 
> > Sorry to be so blunt about this but anyone reading these 
letters 
> > can see their partisan and one sided concepts. Another area 
is 
> > the concern about orientalists like Hume and Max Muller. 
They 
> > made great contributions to oriental studies in their time! 
> > 
> > 
> > After all, it is the Mahatmas
> > > who were the real founders and inspiration of the original 
TS.
> > 
> > Theosophy is predates the TS by several thousands of years.
> > 
> > > But so far you have not offered one single thing to 
substantiate 
> > any of the
> > > above.
> > > 
> > > Apparently HPB's teachers are all that you describe 
because... 
> > well, simply
> > > because you say they are.
> > > 
> > > All the evidence to the contrary counts for nothing 
because... 
> > well, simply
> > > because you say it doesn't.
> > 
> > All that's been presented as to the existence of these 
> > :mahatmas" is hearsay and that by those who were rather 
> > believers themselves, so one would have to ask for an 
impartial 
> > witness or observer who would not be partial to the "proof'"...
> > > 
> > > You appear to have side-stepped answering any of the 
issues, 
> > questions, and
> > > testimony put to you by members of this group *in 
response* to 
> > what you have
> > > said above.
> > Please note the latter. It was you who raised this issue of
> > > the reality of the Mahatmas existence.
> > 
> > Yes. I feel believing in their material existence lacks 
credibility 
> > and brings disrepute on us from those we would otherwise 
be 
> > our allies and friends.
> > 
> > 
> > There was no sign on the door.
> > > 
> > > In addition...
> > > 
> > > For some time now you have tried to present students of 
HPB 
> > and the Mahatmas
> > > as stuck in the past. 
> > 
> > That's true and what I'd like to see is more openess for the 
good 
> > of ourselves and the movement.
> > 
> > 
> > Yet you extoll the virtues of studying what you call
> > > "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 out to
> > > you, what you have written about them could equally be 
said of 
> > HPB and the
> > > Mahatmas.
> > 
> > I'm glad you study them as well Peter but I think there is really 
> > little comparison between what these "Mahatmas" have 
> > expressed and an Aurobindo or a Ramakrishna.
> > 
> > I'm not including Madame Blavatsky in this as I think we are 
> > aware she at most claimed to be a channel ... We can still 
> > appreciate what she wrote in many cases and be proud that 
she 
> > did.
> > 
> > But Art, you need to know that all of these Yogis you mention 
are
> > > dead, at least physically, and have been for some time. 
> > 
> > I think I mentioned Sancheti Asoo Lal. I'm particularly 
impressed 
> > with the Jain Dharma, but there are others. I think there are 
> > many Masters and Mahatmas that are worthy of our interest 
and 
> > attention that a Kuthumi or such.
> > 
> > The idea that
> > > weighing up their words of yester-year means one is in the 
> > present while
> > > weighing up the teachings of HPB and the Mahatmas 
means 
> > that one is somehow
> > > stuck in the past makes no sense.
> > 
> > I don't know Peter ... maybe not to you...
> > 
> > > 
> > > Some months ago, in this group, you were advocating that 
the 
> > TS drop the
> > > writings and teachings of HPB and the Mahatmas as 
outdated 
> > and no longer
> > > relevant to Theosophy. Your idea of what counted as 
relevant 
> > for 'today'
> > > 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 
> > Atma-Bodhi,
> > > and to hear someone comment on these who really 
knows 
> > his/her Vedanta is a
> > > wonderful thing.
> > > 
> > > But Art, Jesus lived 2000 years ago and 
"Viveka-Chudamani", 
> > "The Crest Jewel
> > > of Wisdom", by Sankaracharya was written around 1200 
years 
> > ago. So once
> > > 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 
> > Sankaracharya is to
> > > be living in the present, has no real basis.
> > 
> > Actually I think David Fideler author of "Jesus Christ Sun of 
God" 
> > deserves a "GRS Mead award" and recommended this to the 
> > National Office...I don't think this was taken seriously, but we 
> > need to recognize authors like Fideler and applaud their 
efforts. 
> > The Crest Jewel was translated by my Guru Swami 
> > Prabhavananda and I had the bounty of listening to him 
expound 
> > and comment about this. This was a living experience Peter.
> > > 
> > > Your latest advice to Nick is that he and others should 
move on 
> > from the
> > > perspectives offered by HPB and the Mahatmas a few 
> > generations ago. 
> > 
> > Again I think many of the writings of Madame Blavatsky are 
still 
> > worthy of study... What I'm speaking about are the 
"mahatmas". 
> > You know authorities in any field are cited but not always 
agreed 
> > with. We need to be willing work with our minds and 
disagree at 
> > times when necessary.
> > 
> > 
> > You
> > > write to do so "means breaking the old patterns and trying 
new 
> > ones." And
> > > what are these new patterns you think Nick should try? 
One 
> > such *new*
> > > pattern is to listen to Monks teaching doctrines 
promulgated by 
> > the Buddha
> > > 2500 years ago!! Yes, that sounds really "new". 
> > 
> > Also, did it ever occur to
> > > you that you might be telling this to someone who has 
been a 
> > genuine lover
> > > of Buddhism for many years?
> > 
> > I am very glad you are a genuine lover of Buddhism!
> > 
> > > Art, I don't believe there are members in this group who 
have 
> > any interest
> > > at all in converting you into a belief in the Mahatmas. Nor 
> has 
> > anyone
> > > 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, 
> > but
> > > neither will I stand by while you 'rubbish' them.
> > 
> > Thanks Peter but I have to call them as I see them. I value 
your 
> > remarks and hope we can continue to discuss these issues.
> > > 
> > > Conversely, you HAVE shown an interest in persuading 
people 
> > away from HPB
> > > and her Teachers.
> > 
> > I really have no agenda here to persuade people "away from 
> > HPB"
> > 
> > 
> > > My own personal view is that it matters not whether a 
'teaching' 
> > is 100
> > > years old or 100,000 years old. It is our own individual 
> > application to
> > > 'the work' that either brings the underlying truth 'alive' in 
> this 
> > present
> > > 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 any other
> > > 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 path.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ...Peter
> > 
> > Well said Peter but I do think some discrimination is called 
for. I 
> > respectfully disagree with you regarding the existence of the 
> > "Mahatmas" and suggest as I have that they are figures 
largely 
> > influenced by the spiritualist movement and are lacking in 
> > credibility.
> > 
> > In Friendship,
> > 
> > Art