Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00256)

About a week ago Daniel wrote:

But are you also EQUALLY sceptical of ALL other witnesses who 
claim 
> to have observed or experienced psychic and/or spirtual 
> manifestations/experiences? There are many materialistic 
minded 
> skeptics of the paranormal and the spiritual who use your 
SAME 
> argument of HEARSAY to pooh-pooh the reality of any thing 
beyond the 
> physical. In other words, do you use your HEARSAY argument 
just on 
> the theosophical witnesses or do you apply it to all witnesses 
of 
> similar happenings?
> 
> For example, Aurobindo claimed he "saw" Koot Hoomi. 
Yogananda claimed 
> to be in contact with Babaji who appears as elusive as the 
> theosophical Masters. Are you equally skeptical of their 
claims?
> Or what about Sai Baba and his paranormal claims? 

I responded that I was equally skeptical. I submit the following 
material not simply as a point in an argument with Daniel 
because I believe if he were aware of all the reports he would 
likely alter his view as I have about Sai Baba.

A Swedish Theosophist Lennart Hansson is also a former Sai 
Baba devotee and it is to him that I owe this information. It 
relates to Sai's Vibhuti manifestations and some other very 
unfortunate allegations of sexual molestations in connection 
with Sai Baba himself. So i submit this material as a genral 
warning that we cannot be too careful inour approach to those 
who claim paranormal powers. A dose of skepticism or holding 
them to a higher standard of proof is I think a healthy thing.

http://www.myfreeoffice.com/saibabaexposed/menu.html

- Arthur Gregory



--- In theos-talk@egroups.com, "Blavatsky Archives " <info@b...> 
wrote:
> 
> Art,
> 
> I will briefly reply to your latest email addressed to Peter.
> 
> You write to Peter:
> 
> > I respectfully disagree with you regarding the existence of the 
> > "Mahatmas" and suggest as I have that they are figures 
largely 
> > influenced by the spiritualist movement and are lacking in 
> > credibility.
> 
> Art, you certainly have every right to disagree with Peter and to 
> believe as you see fit. I think that is one thing that all of us 
> will agree on. 
> 
> But having said that, let me turn my attention to a few of your 
> statements that deal with the Masters of HPB.
> 
> For example, you say the Mahatmas are figures that lack 
"credibility" 
> but exactly what you mean by that term is unclear to me. I can 
try 
> to guess what you might mean by that but it is fairly 
> imcomprehensible as to what you really mean. 
> 
> I assume also that you have no desire to give us any details 
which 
> would make your position understandable.
> 
> Again, you seem quite reluctant to actually deal with the 
eyewitness 
> accounts of the Theosophical witnesses. You are short on any 
> specifics and instead make generalizations such as:
> 
> > All that's been presented as to the existence of these 
> > :mahatmas" is hearsay and that by those who were rather 
> > believers themselves, so one would have to ask for an 
impartial 
> > witness or observer who would not be partial to the "proof'"...
> 
> Hearsay??? I have no clear understanding or idea of what you 
really 
> mean by this. 
> 
> But are you also EQUALLY sceptical of ALL other witnesses 
who claim 
> to have observed or experienced psychic and/or spirtual 
> manifestations/experiences? There are many materialistic 
minded 
> skeptics of the paranormal and the spiritual who use your 
SAME 
> argument of HEARSAY to pooh-pooh the reality of any thing 
beyond the 
> physical. In other words, do you use your HEARSAY argument 
just on 
> the theosophical witnesses or do you apply it to all witnesses 
of 
> similar happenings?
> 
> For example, Aurobindo claimed he "saw" Koot Hoomi. 
Yogananda claimed 
> to be in contact with Babaji who appears as elusive as the 
> theosophical Masters. Are you equally skeptical of their 
claims?
> Or what about Sai Baba and his paranormal claims? Do you 
also apply 
> the HEARSAY skeptical argument to those claims?
> 
> Art, believe or disbelieve as you see fit. But if you want to 
> communicate your views about HPB's Masters and feel that 
thoughtful 
> students of Theosophy might benefit from your views, you will 
have to 
> present more detailed explanations if you want us to 
understand your 
> position and the reasons why you have adopted that stance. 
> 
> The devil is in the details.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@egroups.com, arthra999@y... wrote:
> > Thanks for your Letter Peter and I hope you can see that I 
have 
> > sincerely replied to your post. Following your remarks , I have 
> > added my own. My best to you and trust that we can be 
friends.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@egroups.com, "Peter Merriott" <nous@b...> 
> > wrote:
> > > Art,
> > > 
> > > > I think you are as free to embrace your Mahatmas as I am 
to
> > > > reject them.
> > > 
> > > As far as I know we all agree with you on this. We are each 
> > free to believe
> > > as we wish. But our freedom to 'accept' or 'reject' is not the 
> > issue here.
> > > The motto of the TS states, "There is no religion higher 
than 
> > truth", and
> > > not "There is no truth higher than what we want to believe."
> > 
> > Truth is as we perceive it Peter. I am willing to concede that I 
> only 
> > know a small portion.
> > 
> > > When you write into these Theosophical forums saying you 
> > urge people to
> > > reject HPB's teachers as nothing more than the spooks 
from 
> > spiritualism;
> > 
> > What I mean to say is that spiritualism seems to have 
influenced 
> > the manifestations of the "mahatmas" in question, such as 
the 
> > mysterious letters that appear from the air. Many early 
> > theosophists we all know were spiritualists and mediums 
> > believing in these things and placing credance in them. 
Today 
> > there would not be so much credibility.
> > 
> > > when you say they are not real Mahatmas and nothing they 
> > have written
> > > measures up to what a real Mahatma would write;
> > 
> > Compare what Shri Aurobindo with Master Kuthumi?
> > 
> > when you accuse them of
> > > being snide-ish and causing divisions between people... 
> > 
> > As in the London Lodge and personally remarking about the 
> > then personages of the occult scene?
> > 
> > then I think it is
> > > only reasonable to expect that your fellow theosophists will 
ask 
> > you to
> > > offer something to substantiate those views. 
> > 
> > Good Peter, I agree and hoped we were speaking of these 
> > things.What I question is the presumed authority of the 
Masters 
> > speaking on matters of strategy in the London Lodge as in 
the 
> > Mahatma Letters. From what I know about spiritually 
advanced 
> > beings they would hardly concern themselves with such trivia 
or 
> > tribble. 
> > 
> > Sorry to be so blunt about this but anyone reading these 
letters 
> > can see their partisan and one sided concepts. Another area 
is 
> > the concern about orientalists like Hume and Max Muller. 
They 
> > made great contributions to oriental studies in their time! 
> > 
> > 
> > After all, it is the Mahatmas
> > > who were the real founders and inspiration of the original 
TS.
> > 
> > Theosophy is predates the TS by several thousands of years.
> > 
> > > But so far you have not offered one single thing to 
substantiate 
> > any of the
> > > above.
> > > 
> > > Apparently HPB's teachers are all that you describe 
because... 
> > well, simply
> > > because you say they are.
> > > 
> > > All the evidence to the contrary counts for nothing 
because... 
> > well, simply
> > > because you say it doesn't.
> > 
> > All that's been presented as to the existence of these 
> > :mahatmas" is hearsay and that by those who were rather 
> > believers themselves, so one would have to ask for an 
impartial 
> > witness or observer who would not be partial to the "proof'"...
> > > 
> > > You appear to have side-stepped answering any of the 
issues, 
> > questions, and
> > > testimony put to you by members of this group *in 
response* to 
> > what you have
> > > said above.
> > Please note the latter. It was you who raised this issue of
> > > the reality of the Mahatmas existence.
> > 
> > Yes. I feel believing in their material existence lacks 
credibility 
> > and brings disrepute on us from those we would otherwise 
be 
> > our allies and friends.
> > 
> > 
> > There was no sign on the door.
> > > 
> > > In addition...
> > > 
> > > For some time now you have tried to present students of 
HPB 
> > and the Mahatmas
> > > as stuck in the past. 
> > 
> > That's true and what I'd like to see is more openess for the 
good 
> > of ourselves and the movement.
> > 
> > 
> > Yet you extoll the virtues of studying what you call
> > > "real Mahatmas" like:
> > > 
> > > > "Ramakrishna, Ramana and Aurobindo [who] were 
> > physically
> > > > incarnated for people to have Darshan with them and 
today 
> > we
> > > > are fortunate to have access to writings and impressions 
of
> > > > people who met them. In this way we as beings can 
weigh 
> > their
> > > > words and accept or reject their words and apply them or 
not 
> > to
> > > > our own lives and spiritual search.
> > > 
> > > I like to study these too, along with many others, and as 
> > pointed out to
> > > you, what you have written about them could equally be 
said of 
> > HPB and the
> > > Mahatmas.
> > 
> > I'm glad you study them as well Peter but I think there is really 
> > little comparison between what these "Mahatmas" have 
> > expressed and an Aurobindo or a Ramakrishna.
> > 
> > I'm not including Madame Blavatsky in this as I think we are 
> > aware she at most claimed to be a channel ... We can still 
> > appreciate what she wrote in many cases and be proud that 
she 
> > did.
> > 
> > But Art, you need to know that all of these Yogis you mention 
are
> > > dead, at least physically, and have been for some time. 
> > 
> > I think I mentioned Sancheti Asoo Lal. I'm particularly 
impressed 
> > with the Jain Dharma, but there are others. I think there are 
> > many Masters and Mahatmas that are worthy of our interest 
and 
> > attention that a Kuthumi or such.
> > 
> > The idea that
> > > weighing up their words of yester-year means one is in the 
> > present while
> > > weighing up the teachings of HPB and the Mahatmas 
means 
> > that one is somehow
> > > stuck in the past makes no sense.
> > 
> > I don't know Peter ... maybe not to you...
> > 
> > > 
> > > Some months ago, in this group, you were advocating that 
the 
> > TS drop the
> > > writings and teachings of HPB and the Mahatmas as 
outdated 
> > and no longer
> > > relevant to Theosophy. Your idea of what counted as 
relevant 
> > for 'today'
> > > was a group you ran for 18 months studying "Jesus, Sun of 
> > God,".
> > > 
> > > You also say you love "Viveka-Chudamani". Yes, I do too, 
and 
> > Atma-Bodhi,
> > > and to hear someone comment on these who really 
knows 
> > his/her Vedanta is a
> > > wonderful thing.
> > > 
> > > But Art, Jesus lived 2000 years ago and 
"Viveka-Chudamani", 
> > "The Crest Jewel
> > > of Wisdom", by Sankaracharya was written around 1200 
years 
> > ago. So once
> > > again, to say that studying HPB and the writings of the 
> > Mahatmas is to be
> > > stuck in the past, yet to study 'Jesus' and the works of 
> > Sankaracharya is to
> > > be living in the present, has no real basis.
> > 
> > Actually I think David Fideler author of "Jesus Christ Sun of 
God" 
> > deserves a "GRS Mead award" and recommended this to the 
> > National Office...I don't think this was taken seriously, but we 
> > need to recognize authors like Fideler and applaud their 
efforts. 
> > The Crest Jewel was translated by my Guru Swami 
> > Prabhavananda and I had the bounty of listening to him 
expound 
> > and comment about this. This was a living experience Peter.
> > > 
> > > Your latest advice to Nick is that he and others should 
move on 
> > from the
> > > perspectives offered by HPB and the Mahatmas a few 
> > generations ago. 
> > 
> > Again I think many of the writings of Madame Blavatsky are 
still 
> > worthy of study... What I'm speaking about are the 
"mahatmas". 
> > You know authorities in any field are cited but not always 
agreed 
> > with. We need to be willing work with our minds and 
disagree at 
> > times when necessary.
> > 
> > 
> > You
> > > write to do so "means breaking the old patterns and trying 
new 
> > ones." And
> > > what are these new patterns you think Nick should try? 
One 
> > such *new*
> > > pattern is to listen to Monks teaching doctrines 
promulgated by 
> > the Buddha
> > > 2500 years ago!! Yes, that sounds really "new". 
> > 
> > Also, did it ever occur to
> > > you that you might be telling this to someone who has 
been a 
> > genuine lover
> > > of Buddhism for many years?
> > 
> > I am very glad you are a genuine lover of Buddhism!
> > 
> > > Art, I don't believe there are members in this group who 
have 
> > any interest
> > > at all in converting you into a belief in the Mahatmas. Nor 
> has 
> > anyone
> > > who has written here shown they regard a belief in their 
> > existence as an
> > > entry qaulification to the study of Theosophy. I certainly 
> don't, 
> > but
> > > neither will I stand by while you 'rubbish' them.
> > 
> > Thanks Peter but I have to call them as I see them. I value 
your 
> > remarks and hope we can continue to discuss these issues.
> > > 
> > > Conversely, you HAVE shown an interest in persuading 
people 
> > away from HPB
> > > and her Teachers.
> > 
> > I really have no agenda here to persuade people "away from 
> > HPB"
> > 
> > 
> > > My own personal view is that it matters not whether a 
'teaching' 
> > is 100
> > > years old or 100,000 years old. It is our own individual 
> > application to
> > > 'the work' that either brings the underlying truth 'alive' in 
> this 
> > present
> > > moment or leaves it like a dead letter of the past. I 
maintain 
> > this is true
> > > whether we call ourselves Buddhists, Hindus, 
Theosophists or 
> > by any other
> > > label and whether we have gurus or not. Thus, what 
matters 
> > most of all is
> > > that we get on with the genuine study and apply ourselves 
to 
> > the path.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ...Peter
> > 
> > Well said Peter but I do think some discrimination is called 
for. I 
> > respectfully disagree with you regarding the existence of the 
> > "Mahatmas" and suggest as I have that they are figures 
largely 
> > influenced by the spiritualist movement and are lacking in 
> > credibility.
> > 
> > In Friendship,
> > 
> > Art