Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00083)

Dear Bill,

I am so sorry I really apologize for my e-mail. I really mean it.

Erica

Wow! A second post. You must have a lot of time for me to waste today. :)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erica Letzerich" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 4:42 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: No reply to Bill Meredith's Excellent Post


> Hi,
>
> First of all the Mahatmas is an interrogation point that will remain
> open in the history of the Theosophical Movement. But in the same
> time how Blavatsky could have produced the Secret Doctrine? Was she
> a genius? So there is a general tendency to consider the existence
> of the Mahatmas a real fact. Not only but it's quite logical
> attitude to consider the existence of more advanced persons between
> humanity.

My point is that certain logical fallout results from every premise and
assumption. We try to side step this fallout by saying that the question is
open but the answer is this and such. If we accept that the answer is that
Mahatmas exist and that they helped Blavatsky write or wrote through her,
then a great linkage of conscious beings is in operation. What is the
fallout?
>
> But Bill in his e-mail formulated questions based in a very
> Ledbearterian view about the Mahatmas. Leadbeater on his writings
> created an idolatry atmosphere around the Mahatmas, that it is still
> hold by many today in the Theosophical Society. There is no such
> thing as idealized by Leadbeater in his mythomaniac crises. Actually
> many of the mixing up we see today in the so called new age movement
> and all this idolatry around the Mahatmas is a consequence in great
> degree of Leadbeaters writings.
>

I like to think that I formulated my question from a Meredithian point of
view. If that appears Ledbeartarian to you then you have clearly read more
Leadbeater than me. I don't waste my time like that.

> I think its interesting to consider this quote of Krishnamurti from
> Katinka's site:
>
> Krishnaji asked "Have you read *Masters on the Path*?"
>
> to which Achyut said, "Yes. I remember everything."
>
> Krishnaji responded
>
> "Have you noticed something? Their bodies are refined bodies. But it
> sounds like an ordinary person when it is said that he has a beard.
> But it sounds like an ordinary person when it is said that he has a
> beard, he has such-and-such color of eyes. It is to corporealize the
> incorporeal. CWL has distorted the concept of the Masters and
> brought it to the level of idolatry."


HPB fell to the ground in the presence of her masters. She describes them
in a very physical way. If my master appears to me I expect to do the same.
But not necessarily if your master appears to me.
>
> Bill also formulates a question about Universal Brotherhood, where
> he presumes that there is a common understanding and agreement about
> what universal brotherhood means. In fact there is not a common
> agreement of what Universal Brotherhood might mean. Some consider a
> loving attitude towards others, or the realization of the oneness of
> life, or a system based on very clear laws.
>

What do you consider Universal Brotherhood to mean? My point was exactly
that each of us must decide for ourselves whether we accept the attitude
displayed by Koot Hoomi in our definition of universal brotherhood.



> Third is nature elitist? Why some persons are born with the mind
> potential of Einstein or as a Gandhi and others are not? Why some
> persons are interested into just to reach economical status or fame
> while other are interested to find a deeper meaning to understand
> the nature of existence? There is nothing like equality in the very
> concept of Universal brotherhood the first thing which should be
> understood is the great difference that exists into the inner
> potentials and level of understanding of every individual. And this
> is not an elitist attitude but is a lesson that nature itself
> teaches us. To expect that everybody would have the same
> understanding is a cruel attitude towards the inner potential and
> interests of others. Actually about Universal Brotherhood Annie
> Besant have presented very interested ideas to be considered.

OK. I understand and appreciate your point of view. You are very
comfortable living your life through the descriptions of mahatmas that
others have provided for you. I am not. Does it matter that we are
different on this point?
>
> Erica
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>




Yahoo! Groups Links








Erica Letzerich .'.







---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]