Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00457)

--- In theos-talk@y..., Steve Stubbs <stevestubbs@y...> wrote:
> 
> The Pratt article is a piece of pratt. The issue is
> not whether Paul has correctly identified the
> mahatmas, but whether ther were any mahatmas to
> identify. I say there were and he says there were
> not. 

Thanks for your opinion of the piece in question (piece of what, I 
leave to others to say.) BUT-- I spent years trying to prove that 
there *were* Mahatmas behind the scenes of the 1880s TS. All we 
differ on is the *connections* among HPB's mentors and sponsors, not 
whether or not she had any. (Isn't that right?-- I say she was 
linked to many *different* "lodges"-- Masonic, Sufi, Theravada, Sikh, 
Vedanta, etc.-- whose only connection was their common acquaintance 
with her. You say there was some overarching organization to which 
all these folks belonged?) It is not the *Masters* I call a myth-- 
after all the book's title claims to reveal them and how can you 
reveal something nonexistent-- but the Great White Lodge. And maybe 
we differ also on what we mean by "Mahatmas." I mean "the people HPB 
was talking about when she talked about her Mahatmas" regardless of 
how much they deserved the appelation-- their inner spiritual status 
being of course inaccessible to the profane historical researcher who 
is Akashically illiterate :)

Happy holidays,

PJ