Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00291)

ET

>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.

>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?

RI

No I guess there is nothing wrong with thinking about it this way. You
should remember however that John Algeo criticised Paul for using the term
*Masters* in a not-quite-preternatural-enough fashion. I agree there is a
"scale" of advancement going up from the common person; however I prefer the
term *Adept* capitalized to characterize someone who is able to utilize
his or her theosophical "category one" transcendental understandings for
the more successful management of his or her private life. There are
naturally many "degrees of Adeptship."

Perhaps then we agree on this. Where we may disagree nevertheless is how
freely and in what manner an individual is entitled to promulgate esoteric
ideas without indicating their basis category one transcendental; "category
two scientific"; or "category three" just passing them along because
someone else passed them along. If HPB's testimony for the existence of her
Mahatmas the type with wonder-working powers etc. is sufficient for someone
else to believe in Them that is fine with me--provided of course that the
person does not present the belief in a way which suggests that his or her
own theosophical development also corroberates Their existence. One of
academia's few saving graces perhaps is its obdurate insistence on a proper
chain of footnotes. . . .

ET

>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.

RI

To the extent you speak about the Mahatmas in this way I honor your words.

[ET incidental

>>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

RI

*idiopathic* 01: "peculiar to the individual" WEBSTER'S SEVENTH NEW
COLLEGIATE]

Best wishes

Richard Ihle

I