Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00470)

Hi, Paul:

Your detractors keep saying you don't believe in the
mahatmas, so maybe I need to get a copy of your book
again and reread it. I was under the impression you
believed there was no corporeal person who disguised
his identity with the initial M and ditto with the
other who disguised his identity with the initials KH.

Otherwise no sensible person can disagree with what
you say in your post.

Sorry I am not going to invest the time to critique
Pratt's piece. He cites the Eglington incident, which
was a horribly botched magic trick as evidence, plus
regards John Algeo's opinions, which he has a right to
state, as evidence, etc. Finally he says the reader
must accept his view of the mahatmas or the whole
system of philosophical speculation falls to the
ground. That's nonsense. The value of the
philosophical system can be evaluated as a completely
separate issue from historical problems, and frankly
should be. His premise is sound IMHO and his case
could be argued well, but would have to be argued very
differently than he has done it to have any logical
force. As you know, a fundamentalist shout site is no
place to discuss serious issues in a disciplined
manner. In any event, critiquing Pratt would be going
backward and it makes more sense to go forward.

Steve

--- kpauljohnson <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com