Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00141)

RI
>>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?

ET
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?

RI
Unless an individual corroborates these ideas theosophically mystically
transcendentally for himself or herself the ideas--for all of their beauty
and glory--are merely potential "contaminants" for the formation of egoic
delusions at either the desire-mental or mental levels of consciousness. "I
*really am* the idea I believe or am attracted to." "I *really am* my
dispassionate understanding of the idea and the logical operations and
implications which arise from it."

Few individuals who believe in the continuing existence of the Mahatmas seem
to testify that such a belief is an unpleasant or merely neutral thing for
them; therefore one might guess that it is "pleasant" or egoically "useful"
to them in some way. Possibly *ditto* for *Parabrahm* *planes* *unity*
etc.--however there is a much better chance that these are actually
individual theosophical insights since they are some of the first things
which authenticate themselves by means of meditative practice.

*Private* is really the thing I was hoping you would address. In this
instance I mean it in the sense of being "closed" or "restricted to the
individual." Assuming for the discussion that the fact of living Mahatmas
has *not* been validated theosophically by a person what could be another
basis for "believing" in Them? Is there any or is it merely a closed
pleasant private predilection of merely idiopathic importance. If it is
just the latter certainly the "Chain of Authority" we were talking about
seems a little slight . . . and to use it perhaps a little arrogant.

Would you be willing step up to the plate theosophically? That is would you
be willing to go on record and say that you have an inner certainty about the
continuing existence of the Mahatmas and that it has come as the natural
result of your meditative practice or that it has developed in you in some
other theosophical/mystical/transcendental way? I would accept such a
statement without challenge.

On the other hand look what we have without it:

"How do you know there are Mahatmas?"
"Because H.P.B. tells us there are."
"How do you know H.P.B. is reliable in this regard?"
"Because H.P.B.'s knowledge was given to her by Mahatmas."
"How do you know there are Mahatmas?"
"Because H.P.B. tells us there are."
"How do you know H.P.B. is reliable in this regard?"
"Because H.P.B's knowledge was given to her by Mahatmas."
"How do you know there are Mahatmas?"

Best wishes

Richard Ihle