Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00084)

Dear Erica,

I enjoy reading what you write. Your posts are very meaningful to me.
Please accept my apology if I misread them and responded inappropriately.

regards,

Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erica Letzerich" <eletzerich@y...>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: No reply to Bill Meredith's Excellent Post


>
>
> 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]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>