Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00055)

RI:

>>Arrogance or humility represent an attitude we bring to things.
>>[. . .] The idea that the Mahatmas have a body of knowledge
>>and that it is more than we know is not arrogant.

>But would it be arrogant to talk with apodictic certainty about
>living Mahatmas and the authenticity of what one has learned by
>means of Them if Their continuing existence were merely someone's
>pleasant private belief to begin with?

Dictionary time for apodictic:

AHD> necessary or demonstratably true incontrovertible

The theosophical doctrines include certain key ideas like
reincarnation and karma other planes of existance the unity
of life and the path of spiritual evolution. This includes the
idea of the Masters. There are various ideas about them that are
taught us. We can infer more from the literature and from our
own thinking.

While it's fine to open up to consideration any particular idea
found in Theosophy and consider its pros and cons I don't think
that the basic ideas are anyone's pleasant private beliefs. The
ideas are part of a system of thought and they are interdependent.

You could also say the same thing about any of the basic ideas.
Perhaps Parabrahm is someone's private belief? Or other planes
of existence? Or the unity of life?

We come back to the basic question of how we know things. Is it
possible for someone to accept Masters as taught by Theosophy
as true without personally knowing them? I'd say yes. And the same
for the other basic doctines.

>I suppose however that capitalizing *Belief* in this case
>would justify the forging of such an unbreakable chain of
>Authority for oneself. . . .

The chain or lineage passes from Dhyani-Chohans through the
Buddhas Bodhisattvas Mahatmas to lesser gurus coming down
ourselves at some point.

We can of course believe that there are such higher beings or
not. That belief can be qualified with uncertainity where we
say "I think this may be true but I'm not sure." Or the belief
may be based upon something we read and dependent upon citations
for its support: "I read on page XYZ of 'The Top Secret Doctrine'."
But we're entitled to study and believe in as much of Theosophy as
we find appealing and to speak our beliefs with conviction.

>>I don't think that the Mahatmas are holding back any of their
>>knowledge ...

>Because you said "*are* holding back" there seems to be a
>suggestion of intimacy and insight into Their current
>motivations etc. Could it be that this was simply a hasty
>verb-tense oversight? I.e. did you really mean the passage to
>read something more along these lines: "I don't believe that
>the Mahatmas held back any of their knowledge from the public
?due to pride or contempt. Sources suggest that they gave out
>as much as they safely could and that many of those fragments
>are what we have available in theosophical groups"?

I don't think that it's unreasonable to speak in the present tense
of what the Masters may be doing. To do so does not mean that
I have to be intimate with them to know them personally. This
would be especially true in the case of things which they have
always done things not likely to change in a few generations.

In "The Mahatma Letters" they talk about not giving out the secrets
of occult science to the public and about how would-be students
need to come to them or settle for crumbs. Do you know of anything
that would have caused this ages-old approach to change in the
past century?

-- Eldon