Who/what are the Mahatmas?

Are the Mahatmas in any way related to the Dhyani Chohan? This is becoming rather vague for me. Inference as to who and what the mahatmas are/where seems to be varied in those that mention them in theosophical writings.

Hi Christian,

Take a look at this page I put together.

http://users.ez2.net/nick29/theosophy/lessons14.htm

Go three-fourths of the way down the page and look at chart three. You will see that a Maha-Chohan is one 'office' (at the seventh Initiation level) in the hierarchy.

Excellent stuff. Much to study. I've been trying to follow the term "Watcher" through various philosophies, it was interesting to see it mentioned so prevalently in your write-up.

Not able to copy pieces of the referenced page, due to its graphics I surmise, so as to comment. So, I am referring to the Hierarchy Graph to which you addended the above quote.

I found it most interesting to find the definition re "the Central Sun" referring to the Universe, and the Central Sun of our Galaxy. I have actually been reaching this conclusion of a central consciousness in relation to a book I am working on.

I am in agreement in concept with your response, but wanted to question the part in red. I can see that the Christian Archangels are [representative], but don't consider thier named designations correct. Primarily, because the church has turned itself over and over on angelology. For hundreds of years angels were not even allowed. How they were portrayed has changed several times. But most of all, WHO they are has been a constant problem for the church. Unfortunately for them, the initially recognized Archangels (and by the way, Christianity has had a hard time accepting any but Michael then Gabrial at first, and after much effort Raphael. The others are actually from the apocrapha and are not cannonical, just part of Christian Biblical History. The reason for the problem I mentioned was that one of their own Bishops was carrying out rituals with the Archangels and to the congregation, and it was discovered that there was pagan connections back to Chaldean times. So, the church started substituting, then renaming, then substituting etc.

It's funny how Michangelo's work at the Vatican, a labor of many years and at the behest of the pope, was challenged by the successor pope within the year after Michangelo's death. He eventually had the Sistine Chapel ALTERED to represent the image of angels/archangels to his more conservative views. It was only recently, seems like the 70's, that the Chapel was restored.

Anyway, ... theosophy has looked into Archangels and I believe they have concluded that the Eastern Orthadox presentation was the correct one. As I recall, Madame Blavatsky did an extreme write-up in Lucifer on the Catholic Angel cover-ups.

Correct me if you draw from a different understanding, but I believe Theosophy would claim "the Seven Star-Angels" to be:

Michael (like unto God),
Gabriel (the strength of God),
Raphael (divine virtue),
Uriel (God's light and fire),
Scaltiel (the speech of God),
Jehudiel (the praise of God), and
Barachiel (the blessing of God)


I believe it was our much cherished Uriel within the New Age fold who was the original source of all the angst. Also known as Ariel and Zariel. Uriel had connections to the Sun at one time, and somehow has come to be associated with the Earth. (Theosophy has spoken to star-angel associations to planets, by the way.)

Christianity had a problem with literally naming and thusly designating the Archangels because they were not named in the Old Testement. However, they are in the New Testement, and many of the newly uncoverd books that came from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, there is the book of Hermes, something I've seen Theosopy speak to, which gives specific names. It's all so complicated I've had to database the whole of it given the cross-connections of religions; Judaism to Christianity to Islam, for example. The Ethiopian Bible, btw, also follow the Eastern Orthadox presentation, which in itself is telling. Much that the Bible excludes is found in the Ethiopian Bible. Ethiopia, it is told, is where Soloman hed the Arc of the Covenant (although, the person andthe Arc have not been proven in any physical world way).

From your Reference work, Nick:

Hierarchy seems so bottom-to-top and verticle. Given the varied Galaxies (which each have a Central Sun), which exist at different times, and exist and cease to exist ... I have to imagine this branching out like veins in a leaf to capture the width and variation -- yet still going from bottom to top. Therefore, there is not an explicit dependency from one to the other Logs - just as groups or categories, I would surmise for your structure to work.

From your Reference work, Nick:

It is my understanding that [all] forces perceived by our science, Theosopy would atrribute to Fohat --- in its varied manifestations.

From your Reference work, Nick:

Koilon is a shape which the Greeks would show as if half a circle. Used to designate the "orchastra" in Theatre. This one-half of a circle may be what Leadbeater was going for:

From your Reference work, Nick:

Interesting, but I feel conflicted. H.P.B. has said that Nature was the sum total of Consciousness in the Universe. It is the "State" of Consciousness in the Universe. (at least, that's my recollection.) Assuming what I recall is correct, then you would be including this in your words "ALL ASPECTS of our Physical Universe," yes?

Nick, could I ask what the source is of the "Central Sun" as it relates to the Guardian Spirit of Universe and galaxies --- I should like to read, re-read it. As it fits in with some literature I am writing, I would be curious to see if Theosophy attaches names to these ... it might explain some things for me.

I found this piece from a reply of yours back in March 2007. I don't think it is currently on the site:

--> Theosophy tells us very little about the Central Sun. Here are some quotes:

I lifted this from the Kosmos vs Cosmos Thread in "Concepts," as these terms are coming up as I look into the "Central Sun."

I would be inclinded to agree with your interpretation, Nick ... in fact I always have. However, in looking up the Gnostic identification of the planetray angels, Saptarshis, the Se3ven Rishis of the Stars ... ultimately, reaching the concluding these were both the God and the Archangels of Christianity (to speak slightly to an earlier post I made in this Thread, ...) this led me to a diagram a page after. In my 1921 copy of the Secret Doctrine, it is 6. of the Stanza VI. -- Continued. It is titled Diagram III.

In the very top, left hand side, is the reference, "The Three Higher Planes of the Septenary Kosmos." This would lead me to believe that at least the author (are we to presume it to be H.P.B.) in her/this comparison of Eastern and Kabalistic system used Kosmos to refer to the Universe.

HOWEVER . however . however, in the preceding page, a footnote is speaking to the word "World," in the Stanza and wishes to make a point about Kosmos:

"* The whole Kosmos. [in other words, ... The Mother's Spawn filled the Whole." is meant to be read The Mother's Spawn filled the whole Kosmos.] The footnote goes on to clarify, "The reader is reminded that in the Stanzas Kosmos often means only our own Solar System, not the Infinite Universe."

SO ... are we to conclude the term is not used consistently, or if it is consistent, it is done so within the context of specific groups of people(s) or philosophies (,which in this case would be the Kabalistic vs. the Eastern)?

The commentary under the diagram supports a Universal Kosmos. This confusion is within 2 opposing pages, numbers 220 and 221 of VI in my 1921 edition.

WONDERING ... The Leadbeater/Besant camp has lead me to believe they do NOT consider the Planes of Consciousness to be [consistent] througout the Universe, EXCEPT a particular mid-point sub-plane in the Mental Plane. (NOTE: I may have got this from subsiderary reference and not from the principles themselves.) The point is, however, ... if the a Planes are different from one Solar System, or Galaxy to another, then the term Kosmos can be used legitimately both ways.

This whole Thread of content is somewhat synchronistic to my literary research today. On the very next page from the issue of Kosmos just referenced, under the heading "the War in Heaven," the SD is speaking to yet another issue I am exploring.

I have not reached any conclusion that there is/was an actual war between Archangels as the Christian faiths would have it, resulting in "Fallen Angels." I have a different view entirely ... HOWEVER, on page 222 of the SD, I find a citation for "the Central Sun," under the heading "the War in Heaven." Tight coincidence. In this view it is stated:

Given the Theosophical view that the Planets are embodied consciousness, and that these Planetary spirits (to say the least) collide, annihilate and change order and systems certainly paints a picture of spiritual life much like human, only taken to the order of planetary bodies.

I WONDER THOUGH, that part about the Central Sun ... I would be anxious to argue that in the Universe there is also a natural occurrence of "cycles" and "spirals," (very much like we have Chakras in our bodies), and it is THESE that cause to coalescence ... not NECESSARILY literal suns. These spirals could themselves become Suns, however. These spirals ARE WHAT WE SEE of other Galaxies.

And, this by the way, is where I was going with my own literature. So, as I said, it’s been a synchronistic study session today. Interesting possibilities and room for vagueness to have been deliberate and to have underlying meanings -- in my opinion.

Christian,

I do not recall HPB ever naming the Primordial Seven, either at the cosmic (universal) or kosmic (solar system) level. It is not an issue in Theosophy, but it seems to a fascinating issue in Catholicism! If I remember correctly, there is a reference in the New Testament about the Seven Flames Before the Throne (or something like that). This sure sounds like the Primordial Seven to me.

You said,

“…there is not an explicit dependency from one to the other Logs - just as groups or categories, I would surmise for your structure to work.”

--> The theory works from the basic idea that all hierarchies emanate from one central hierarchy. I think there has to be an explicit dependency from one Logos to another.

“It is my understanding that [all] forces perceived by our science, Theosophy would attribute to Fohat --- in its varied manifestations.”

--> Yes, that is my understanding.

Regarding Koilon, do you see it as being the same as Mulaprakriti?

We discussed,

“Prakriti is listed as Nature. It is also listed as “that which comes from Mulaprakriti”. (Mulaprakriti literally means the root of Prakriti.) Perhaps it refers to all aspects of our physical universe.” --> “Interesting, but I feel conflicted. H.P.B. has said that Nature was the sum total of Consciousness in the Universe. It is the "State" of Consciousness in the Universe. (at least, that's my recollection.) Assuming what I recall is correct, then you would be including this in your words "ALL ASPECTS of our Physical Universe," yes?”

--> Yes. The way I see it, Prakriti IS the physical universe. It is a ‘state’ of consciousness, a temporary state of being for parts of Mulaprakriti. This consciousness rises and falls, and it is this rise and fall of consciousness that is the cyclic appearance and disappearance of universes — the cyclic appearance and disappearance of Prakriti.

You have asked for a source for quotes on the Central Sun. The best-known quote is:

“The Central Sun causes Fohat to collect primordial dust in the form of balls, to impel them to move in converging lines and finally to approach each other and aggregate.” (SD vol 1 p 201)

I did a search on Google and found several more quotes:

http://www.google.com/custom?q=theosophy+central+sun

You have brought up the issue of cosmos vs. kosmos. There was a typo in the current edition of the Secret Doctrine, in which the two terms were mistakenly reversed. (A shocking mistake, I must say.) I looked in a copy of the Secret Doctrine from the early 1900’s, and the terms had not been reversed. I must add that I think HPB uses the two terms in a confusing way. But did she do this intentionally, as a blind? Who can say? But I go with cosmos = universe and kosmos = solar system.

You said,

“…if the a Planes are different from one Solar System, or Galaxy to another, then the term Kosmos can be used legitimately both ways.”

--> It is a fascinating idea to consider. But I still like to go with the idea that ‘kosmos’ refers to solar systems.

“…in the Universe there is also a natural occurrence of "cycles" and "spirals," (very much like we have Chakras in our bodies)…”

--> The concept of cycles is a basic theosophical concept. Everything in the universe goes through cycles. As a matter of fact, this is one of Theosophy’s Three Fundamental Propositions.

“…and it is THESE that cause to coalescence ... not NECESSARILY literal suns. These spirals could themselves become Suns, however. These spirals ARE WHAT WE SEE of other Galaxies.”

--> It is possible. But HPB mentions that the true central suns are not physical suns at all. She says that physical suns (and by extension, galaxies too) are merely ‘reflections’ of the true central suns. We have no idea what ‘true’ galaxies would look like if we were to ‘view’ them on, say, the Adi or Anupapaduka planes of existence. (But it sure would be fun to try!)

There is one more issue. One of the problems HPB had was that she could only write so many books in one lifetime. It has been said that, if HPB had written books on all of the knowledge she had access to, her books would have filled numerous libraries. Sadly, she could not write that many books, so she limited herself to only writing about things that are directly important to us. Fortunately, Theosophy says we WILL someday gain access to the kinds of answers you are looking for (even if it means waiting until we become galactic spiritual beings ourselves!).

Thanks for the many responses.

I think this one fits right in with the way I am thinking lately: