Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00817)

At 08:30 PM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>From: Richard Wheaton <rwheaton@bart.ccis.com>
>>To: theos-l@vnet.net
>>Subject: female Mahatmas
>>Message-ID: <3176F511.1D66@bart.ccis.com>
>>
>>Are there any female Mahatmas?
>>
>
>Dear Richard,
>
>I have yet to find any.
>
>There's the World Mother, but you have to look real hard to find references
>to her.
>There's the male Avalokiteshvara who turned into the female Quan Yin.
>There are female goddesses in other ancient religions, but the closest thing
>to a Mahatma we've got is a high chela, Helena P. Blavatsky.
>
>Liesel
>Member TI< TSA, TS in Canada, HR
>
>
>Liesel:

To confuse a Mahatma with what humanity foolishly calls "Gods" and
"Goddesses" is a terrible error. Mahatmas (adepts and illuminati) are all
still living breathing individuals. "The World Mother" is a symbolic figure
and while it has a kind of reality on the non-physical planes of
manifestation, has nothing to do with "The Perfected Human" or Adept.
Figures like Kwan Yin or Kannon, or Avolokitishvara are what the Ancient
Egyptians called "Neters" (Isis, Thoth, Horus etc.) which are manifestations
and symbols of the forces inherent in nature. I've posted lists, directly to
you, of women who were clearly adepts or Mahatmas (even CWL admitted that
Hypatia was an adept). Why is it so hard to accept that actual people whose
histories you know can be adepts. If an adept has to be a "God" or "Goddess"
what use is the kind of self-improvement theosophy provides. HPB was an
adept and her "handler" Narayan was clearly an advanced adept, all that
"high Cela business was a blind to keep her out of trouble. On this subject
Liesel, you are absolutely wrong, and I have no doubts about it.

alexis