Nov 16, 1995 02:24 AM
by K. Paul Johnson
According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:
> Now let's keep this entire discussion in perspective. You
> earlier stated that the quote could be talking about Sengchen
> Tulku his successor or a friend of the TS. Do I need to
> retrieve the quotes where you stated this? If there are three
You are misconstruing the reference to a "friend of the TS." I
did not mean this as a third possibility but was simply saying
that if Olcott was not talking about the martyred Sengchen but
about his successor in the role and that this person was one
of "our Mahatmas" THEN the implication is that one friend of
the TS-- who became the "Master of Ceremonies"-- survived the
executions of the Sengchen whose given name was Losang Palden
and his associates who were also blamed for
> I gave my reasons above snf they have nothing to do with
> Das' reliability. One the other hand it is interesting that you
> are using HSO and HPB' authority to endorse Das' reliability but
> yet all through TMR HPB is giving disinformation.
Simply because I thought it would weigh somewhat with you.
> First of all it is clear that HPB has a formal definition
> of Mahatma that is very different from what you are proposing.
But not inconsistent with it! Is a carrot a plant with a long
cylindrical orange root or a green leafy top? But the root is
not observable to someone walking in the garden. Similarly
HPB's definition of Mahatma relies on inner nonobservable
traits. If one is limited as I am to working on the basis of
observables perforce the operational definition has to be
> When HPB uses the word Mahatma she expects her reader to
> understand the meaning of that word to be consistent with her
> definition not yours. Second of all the "imponderables" do not
> render historical identification impossible. Anna Kingsford was
> specifically identified by HPB and in the Mahatma Letters as a
> "fifth rounder." There is no question that Anna Kingsford was an
> historical person regardless of her "imponderable" title. Oh
> and by the way being a "fifth rounder" does not necessarily
> identify a person as being a Mahatma. Though Kingsford was
> called a fifth rounder she was never called a Mahatma.
What criteria would you find sufficient to declare any person
in history a Theosophical Mahatma? If no criteria suffice
then such identification is a priori impossible. If you
approach my works with the a priori assumption that what they
set out to do is impossible-- on semantic grounds-- then your
negative conclusions are foregone.
> Once again under your definition any authority from whom
> HPB gained information you make a Mahatma. Since HPB has an
> entirely different definition what is a Mahatma to you may not
> be a Mahatma to her.
In the Key she says "we call them the Masters because they are
our teachers." Finding her spiritual teachers is what my book
is about. Meeting some a priori impossible criterion of
identifying people's level of spiritual evolution is not.
> Mahachohan on the other hand according to HPB is the
> Chief of a spiritual Hierarchy or of a school of occultism or
> the head of the "trans-Himalayan Mystics" she means Masters
> here. Purucker comments somewhere that the Mahachohan is not
> even a physical being.
Consider that she talks about a Mahachohan who traveled from
Egypt to Tibet around the same time the Founders went to
India. How would a non-physical being do this?
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application