Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00214)

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.

We seem to be talking about what might be two classes of ideas. The first
is about mystical things related to what is not visible and tangible in
our material world. These things are invisible to our eyes basically
independent of the ordinary and known laws of nature and not directly
experiencable with our physical and psychical senses.

The second class of ideas deals with things that are subject to ordinary
physical processes and exist in our world or perhaps the astral light.
They have ordinary traits. We can learn about them and their attributes.
And they are real in the same sense as an orange on a tree in someone's
backyard.

The first kind of idea may need some theosophical validation. The second
kind of idea deals with things that could be considered as scientific
knowledge and not need some special insight before they can be believed.
I would put the idea of the Masters in the second category as real
living beings and not as an arbitrary mystical insight dealing with
something that is basically unknowable.

I don't need an ego identifiction with the idea that there's a country
called "France" in order to believe that it exists. I can take the word
of geographers and map makers.

>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.

But an idea does not have to be either pleasant or unpleasant. It can
simply make sense be reasonable and be the best idea to explain a
particular area of life.

>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.

These are things that are less likely to find physical validation.
The idea of planes is validated if one accepts that dreams happen in
the astral. The idea of unity can be experienced. If "Parabrahm" is
correctly understood it can be a useful description of the final stage
of unification with the rest of life.

The idea of planes can be experimentally verified. That of Parabrahm
and unity are states of consciousness that can be experienced but not
externally observed.

>*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."

Then this is talking about the type of ideas based upon states of
consciousness or inner experience rather than the external observation
of nature and living things.

>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?

I'd put the idea of the Mahatmas as one subject to external verification
as something that exists in the world. A Mahatma is as real as a taxi driver.
A Mahatma is not only known through mystical insight like a Tibetan deity.

>Is there any or is it merely a closed pleasant private predilection
>of merely idiopathic importance.

Time for the dictionary American Heritage idiopathic =

AHD> designating a disease having no known cause

I wonder if this is an editorial comment on the theosophical Teachings?
At what level of validation does one of the Teachings need to be internally
validated before it is an honest truth something worthy of sharing with
others rather than being personal delusion that merely sickens the person?

>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.

Perhaps your distinction is between ideas that we've heard and merely
parrot without genuine understanding and ideas that we've really made
our own which are significant to us which play an important role in
explaining the way that life works?

>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.

I would say that I'm speaking from what seems genuine to me and not
simply materials that I recall having read in theosophical books.
I've had what I consider insights of my own which I have not specifically
read anywhere. I've found though that my ideas subsequently seem
consistent with what I read as I continue to study Theosophy. I find that
the ideas are inseparable with a dynamic process of change and growth
and creativity. I've also found that there are certain things that are
improper to put into words when they are in the formative stages since
the words may attempt to impose an inappropriate order and direction to
their outcome.

Regarding the Mahatmas though I don't think that their existence needs
to be controversial. They can be defined as being advanced humans beyond
the Arhat stage considering the Buddhist definition of Arhat and less
than the stage of either the Pratyeka Buddha or Bodhisattva. We may
disagree over their abilities and characteristics but their existence
itself does not need to be controversial. If we agree that the Buddha
existed then there is a scale of advancement between the common person
and him. The Mahatmas are humans at one point along this scale. Is there
anything wrong with that idea?

>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."

[at the point the circle repeats itself ...]

It's not really circular here. What we really have is that there are
dozens of key ideas in Theosophy and they're all interconnected.
Reincarnation karma spiritual evolution the Mahatmas the Path
the other planes of existence etc. -- there is a strong interdependence
among the ideas.

We accept the idea of the Masters regardless of HPB's having talked
about them. And we accept from having studied her materials her as
being a spokeswoman for them. She is not infallable and some of what
she writes could be mistaken. But she is considered authoritative in
the same sense as a instructor of chemistry is considered authoritative
while giving a college lecture in his field.

There is not a circle here because the Teachings stand with or without
HPB. The Teachings are accepted based upon their own intrinsic value
and not because HPB has been depicted as being infallible unquestionable
as a Pope speaking ex cathedra to the ignorant masses. The Teachings are
validated I think when they are *gone into* when they are taken at
a deeper level than the simple intellectual understanding of the passage
before us in reading a particular book. The Teachings are both I'd say
an accurate depiction of the visible and invisible worlds and at the
same time a door way through the thinking mind into *lucidity* or
*luminous mind*.

-- Eldon