Re: theos-l digest: October 03, 1999
Oct 04, 1999 05:29 PM
> From: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Monday, October 04, 1999 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 03, 1999
> Bart wrote:
> >> Since it
> >> was important for Mahatmas to "blend in," what better way to remain
> >> anonymous in their time but to be female?
> > They did not "blend in"; they kept themselves separate unless it was
> Then why did they have to choose to be males? I still do not
> why, if they were hidden, a female form wouldn't have served just
Because - surprise! - they were not stupid, and knew where the power
lay. Their alleged* writings mention "power" and "powers," both of
which are methods of control over others. In the same way we get this
curious distinction made recently between different "levels" of chelas.
Poor ol' Sinnett.
We are the chosen few, there ain't no room in heaven for you ..... [all
join in ....]
*Alleged. I use the term because such exalted beings as the mahatmas
are supposed to have been would not, in my opinion and from my
perspective (if I am worthy enough to be allowed one) have descended to
writing about the intrigues etc. within the TS and its London Lodge.
Ergo, a) The writers were not mahatmas, or b) mahatmas are not all they
are cracked up to be, or c) they were written by someone else (singular
Alan the disobedient.
(I prefer to call it "divine discontent" as this is permitted)
De dum de dum de dum .....
Kym is hereby given a break, as requested. (Signed): The Mahatma BS.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application