Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

MAHATMA'S WRITINGS -- What They have Said.

Expand Messages
  • W.Dallas TenBroeck
    July 9 2005 Friends: On the subject of the Mahatma s writings here are some facts offered to consider: MAHATMA S WRITINGS -- What They have Said. The question
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 9, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      July 9 2005

      Friends:

      On the subject of the Mahatma's writings here are some facts offered to
      consider:



      MAHATMA'S WRITINGS -- What They have Said.


      The question arose concerning The method used by the Adepts in drawing
      together the material They and HPB used to answer questions; or in writing
      books like ISIS UNVEILED and the SECRET DOCTRINE as well as many articles.


      The Mahatma ... wrote:


      "You have seen by the Kiddle incident...that even an "adept" when acting in
      his body is not beyond mistakes due to human carelessness...all thro' lack
      of simple caution. There is always that danger if one has neglected to
      ascertain whether the words or sentences rushing into the mind have come all
      from 'within' or whether some may have been impressed from 'without.'...I
      had no time to verify their contents--nor do I now.

      I have a habit of often quoting, 'minus' quotation marks--from the maze of
      what I get in the countless folios of our Akasic libraries, so to say--with
      eyes shut. Sometimes I may give out thoughts that will see light years
      later; at other times what an orator, a Cicero may have pronounced ages
      earlier, and at others, what was only pronounced by modern lips but already
      either written or printed--as in the Kiddle case.

      All this I do (not being a trained writer for the Press) without the
      smallest concern as to where the sentences and strings of words may have
      come from, so long as the serve to express, and fit in with my own
      thoughts." [ML 324]

      The "Kiddle" incident concerned a man of that name who, after reading
      Sinnett's THE OCCULT WORLD, claimed that some of the passages that Mr.
      Sinnett quoted from the Mahatma's letters were originally his.

      Reverting to this subject of plagiarism, we find the Mahatma saying in some
      detail:


      "I am accused of "plagiarism.". We of Tibet and China know not what you
      mean by the word, I do, but this is no reason, perhaps, why I should accept
      your literary laws. Any writer has the privilege of taking out whole
      sentences from the dictionary of "PAI-WOUEN-YEN-FU" the greatest in the
      world, full of quotations from every known writer, and containing all the
      phrases ever used--and to frame them to express his thought. This does not
      apply to the Kiddle case which happened just as I told you. But you may
      find, perchance throughout my letters twenty detached sentences which may
      have been already used in books or MSS.

      When you write upon some subject you surround yourself with books of
      references etc.: when we write upon something the Western opinion about
      which is unknown to us, we surround ourselves with hundred of paras: upon
      this particular topic from dozens of different works--impressed upon the
      Akasa.

      What wonder then, that...even myself--should use occasionally a whole
      sentence already existent, applying it to another--our own idea? I have
      told you of this before and it is no fault of mine if your friends and
      enemies will not remain satisfied with the explanation...For the 'Kiddle'
      business it is your own fault. Why have you printed the OCCULT WORLD before
      sending it to me for revision? I would have never allowed the passage to
      pass...'We are not infallible, all-foreseeing "Mahatmas" at every hour of
      the day,' good friend...." [ML 364]


      Writing in another letter to his correspondent on some of the pearls of
      wisdom that might occasionally be discovered by readers despite the unshaped
      and unpolished style and appearance of the early issues of the THEOSOPHIST,
      He comments (in part):


      "But let your attention be rather drawn to the few pearls of wisdom and
      'occult truths' to be occasionally discovered...And who knows, how many of
      those, who, undismayed by its unprepossessing appearance...may find
      themselves rewarded some day for their perseverance ! Illuminated sentences
      may gleam out upon them, at some time or other, shedding a bright light upon
      some old puzzling problems ...yourself you may, perchance, perceive in them
      the unexpected solution of an old, blurred "dream" of yours, which once
      'recalled' will impress itself in an indelible image upon your 'outer' from
      your inner memory, to never fade out from it again. all this is possible,
      and may happen..." [ ML 278 ]


      Is this not a broad hint as to the value of the "Heart" doctrine? And, its
      relation to the literal dry word-transmission -- then, it is left for the
      disciple to uncover from such texts these keys to his own innate soul memory
      ?

      The matter of picking up words and ideas was asked about by Mr. Sinnett, and
      evoked this response:


      "Quotation from Tennyson? Really cannot say. Some stray lines picked up in
      the astral light or in somebody's brain and remembered, I never forget what
      I once see or read. A bad habit. So much so, that often and unconsciously
      to myself I string together sentences of stray words and phrases, before my
      eyes and which may have been used hundred years ago, or will be hundred
      years hence, in relation to quite a different subject. Laziness and real
      lack of time."
      [ML 286]


      Reviewing, and criticizing some of the writing in ISIS UNVEILED, He wrote:


      "If M. told you to beware trusting ISIS too implicitly, it was because he
      was 'teaching you truth and fact'--and that at the time the passage was
      written we had not yet decided upon teaching the public
      indiscriminately...Many are the subjects treated upon in ISIS that even HPB
      was not allowed to become thoroughly acquainted with; yet they are not
      contradictory if -- "misleading." To make her say -- that the passage
      criticized was "incomplete, chaotic, vague. . .clumsy as many more passages
      in that work" was a sufficiently "frank admission" I should think, to
      satisfy the most crotchety critic. To admit "that the passage was wrong,"
      on the other hand, would have amounted to a useless falsehood, for I
      'maintain' that it is 'not' wrong; since it conceals the 'whole' truth, it
      does not distort it in the fragments of that truth as given in ISIS." [ML
      182]


      We are thus given an idea and an explanation concerning the possibility of
      copying stray phrases and words from various authors. Obviously the
      intention has never been to steal those or use them for any other purpose
      than accuracy of expression.

      In an earlier letter : "She (HPB) states in many places that she was
      writing on behalf of (or even under the dictation of) the Masters of Wisdom,
      whether one "believes" in them or not -- Olcott and Wachmeister (among
      others) make corroborating reports of this, and she says so repeatedly. [
      They (the Masters), have authenticated this fact to Dr. Hubbe-Schleiden--see
      PATH magazine, April 1892, Vol. 8, pp. 1-3 ]. She also says that much if
      not all she wrote, was supervised or reviewed by them. She does say in
      regard to ISIS that the proof-readers made errors...Her writing might be
      criticized, as she did herself, and her own critique ought to be offered for
      the consideration of the reader.

      I bring this forward as otherwise it might leave the impression that the
      Mahatmas connived or were also guilty of "plagiarism" or of "stealing"
      another's words, or of condoning such a practice habitually. They speak for
      themselves.

      In regard to herself, HPB wrote:


      [The following is the greater part of a letter written by H. P.
      Blavatsky some years ago at a time when, subsequent to the Psychical
      Research Society's Report on Theosophical phenomena, not only the public but
      fellow members of the Society were doubting her, doubting themselves,
      doubting the Adepts. Its publication now will throw upon her character a
      light not otherwise obtainable. Written to an intimate and old friend for
      his information and benefit, it bears all the indicia of being out of the
      heart from one old friend to another. Those who have faith in her and in the
      Masters behind her will gain benefit and knowledge from its perusal.]

      Now what you advise me to do, I have for the last three or four years
      attempted most seriously. Dozens of times I have declared that I shall not
      put the Masters any worldly questions or submit before Them family and other
      private matters, personal for the most part. I must have sent back to the
      writers dozens and dozens of letters addressed to the Masters, and many a
      time have I declared I will not ask Them so and so. Well, what was the
      consequence? People still worried me. "Please, do please, ask the Masters,
      only ask and tell Them and draw Their attention to" so-and-so. When I
      refused doing it _____ would come up and bother, or _____, or someone else.
      Now it so happens that you do not seem to be aware of the occult law - to
      which even the Masters are subject Themselves - whenever an intense desire
      is concentrated on Their personalities: whenever the appeal comes from a man
      of even an average good morality, and all the desire is intense and sincere
      even in matters of trifles (and to Them what is not a trifle?): They are
      disturbed by it, and the desire takes a material form and would haunt Them
      (the word is ridiculous, but I know of no other) if They did not create an
      impassable barrier, an Akasic wall between that desire (or thought, or
      prayer) and so isolate Themselves. The result of this extreme measure is
      that They find Themselves isolated at the same time from all those who
      willingly or unwillingly, consciously or otherwise, are made to come within
      the circle of that thought or desire. I do not know whether you will
      understand me; I hope you will. And finding Themselves cut off from me, for
      instance, many were the mistakes made and damages realized that could have
      been averted had. They not often found Themselves outside the circle of
      theosophical events. Such is the case ever since . . . , throwing Their
      names right and left, poured in torrents on the public, so to say, Their
      personalities, powers, and so on, until the world (the outsiders, not only
      Theosophists) desecrated Their names indeed from the North to the South
      Pole. Has not the Maha Chohan put His foot on that from the first? Has He
      not forbidden Mahatma K. H. to write to anyone? (Mr. _____ knows well all
      this.) And have not since then waves of supplications, torrents of desires
      and prayers poured unto Them? This is one of the chief reasons why Their
      names and personalities ought to have been kept secret and inviolable. They
      were desecrated in every possible way by believer and unbeliever, by the
      former when he would critically and from his worldly standpoint examine Them
      (the Beings beyond and outside every worldly if not human law!), and when
      the latter positively slandered, dirtied, dragged Their names in the mud! O
      powers of heaven! what I have suffered - there are no words to express it.
      This is my chief, my greatest crime, for having brought Their personalities
      to public notice unwillingly, reluctantly, and forced into it by ____ and
      ____ .

      Well, now to other things. You and the Theosophists have come to the
      conclusion that in every case where a message was found couched in words or
      sentiments unworthy of Mahatmas it was produced either by elementals or my
      own falsification. Believing the latter, no honest man or woman ought for
      one moment to permit me, such a FRAUD, to remain any longer in the Society.
      It is not a piece of repentance and a promise that I shall do so no longer
      that you need, but to kick me out - if you really think so. You believe, you
      say, in the Masters, and at the same time you can credit the idea that They
      should permit or even know of it and still use me! Why, if They are the
      exalted Beings you rightly suppose Them to be, how could They permit or
      tolerate for one moment such a deception and fraud? Ah, poor Theosophists -
      little you do know the occult laws I see. And here and others are right.
      Before you volunteer to serve the Masters you should learn Their philosophy,
      for otherwise you shall always sin grievously, though unconsciously and
      involuntarily, against Them and those who serve Them, soul and body and
      spirit. Do you suppose for one moment that what you write to me now I did
      not know for years? Do you think that any person even endowed with simple
      sagacity, let alone occult powers, could ever fail to perceive each time
      suspicion when there was one, especially when it generated in the minds of
      honest, sincere people, unaccustomed to and incapable of hypocrisy? It is
      just that which killed me, which tortured and broke my heart inch by inch
      for years, for I had to bear it in silence and had no right to explain
      things unless permitted by Masters, and They commanded me to remain silent.
      To find myself day after day facing those I loved and respected best between
      the two horns of the dilemma - either to appear cruel, selfish, unfeeling by
      refusing to satisfy their hearts' desire, or, by consenting to it, to run
      the chance (9 out of 10) that they shall immediately feel suspicions lurking
      in their minds, for the Master's answers and notes ("the red and blue
      spook-like messages," as ____ truly calls them) were sure in their eyes -
      again 9 times out of 10 - to be of that spook character. Why? Was it fraud?
      Certainly not. Was it written by and produced by elementals? NEVER. It was
      delivered and the physical phenomena are produced by elementals used for the
      purpose, but what have they, those senseless beings, to do with the
      intelligent portions of the smallest and most foolish message? Simply this,
      as this morning before the receipt of your letter, at 6 o'clock, I was
      permitted and told by Master to make you understand at last - you - and all
      the sincere, truly devoted Theosophists: as you sow, so you will reap. . . .


      It is ALL YOU, Theosophists, who have dragged down in your minds the
      ideals of our MASTERS, you who have unconsciously and with the best of
      intentions and full sincerity of good purpose DESECRATED Them by thinking
      for one moment and believing that THEY would trouble Themselves with your
      business matters, sons to be born, daughters to be married, houses to be
      built, etc., etc. And yet, all those who have received such communications
      being nearly all sincere (those who were not have been dealt with according
      to other special laws), you had a right, knowing of the existence of Beings
      who you thought could easily help you, to seek help from Them, to address
      Them, once that a monotheist addresses his personal God, desecrating the
      GREAT UNKNOWN a million of times above the Masters - by asking Him (or IT)
      to help him with a good crop, to slay his enemy, and send him a son or
      daughter; and having such a right in the absolute sense, They could not
      spurn you off and refuse answering you, if not Themselves, then by ordering
      a Chela to satisfy the addressers to the best of his or hers [the chela's]
      ability. How many a time was I - no Mahatma - shocked and startled, burning
      with shame when shown notes from Chelas exhibiting mistakes in science,
      grammar, and thoughts expressed in such language that it perverted entirely
      the meaning originally intended, and having sometimes expressions that in
      Thibetan, Sanscrit, or any other Asiatic language had quite a different
      sense. As in one instance I will give.

      In answer to Mr._____ 's letter referring to some apparent contradiction
      in His. The Chela who was made to precipitate Mahatma K. H.'s reply put, "I
      had to exercise all my ingenuity to reconcile the two things." Now the term
      "ingenuity" used for and meaning candor, fairness, an obsolete word in this
      sense and never used now, but one meaning this perfectly, as even I find in
      Webster, was misconstrued by Massey, Hume, and I believe even _____ to mean
      "cunning," "cleverness," "acuteness" to form a new combination so as to
      prove there was no contradiction. Hence: the Mahatma was made apparently to
      confess most unblushingly to ingenuity, to using craft to reconcile things
      like an acute "tricky lawyer," etc., etc. Now had I been commissioned to
      write or precipitate the letter I would have translated the Master's thought
      by using the word "ingenuousness," "openness of heart, frankness, fairness,
      freedom from reserve and dissimulation," as Webster gives it, and opprobrium
      thrown on Mahatma K. H.'s character would have been avoided. It is not I who
      would have used "carbolic acid" instead of "carbonic acid," etc. It is very
      rarely that Mahatma K. H. dictated verbatim, and when He did there remained
      the few sublime passages found in Mr. Sinnett's letters from Him. The rest -
      he would say - write so-and-so, and the Chela wrote often without knowing a
      word of English, as I am now made to write Hebrew and Greek and Latin, etc.
      Therefore the only thing I can be reproached with - a reproach I am ever
      ready to bear tho' I have not deserved it, having been simply the obedient
      and blind tool of our occult laws and regulations - is of having concealed
      that which the laws and regulations of my pledges did not permit me so far
      to reveal. I owned myself several times mistaken in policy, and now am
      punished for it with daily and hourly crucifixion.

      Pick up stones, Theosophists; pick them up, brothers and kind sisters,
      and stone me to death with them for such mistakes.

      Two or three times, perhaps more, letters were precipitated in my
      presence by a Chela who could not speak English and who took ideas and
      expressions out of my head. The phenomena in truth and solemn reality were
      greater at those times than ever. Yet they often appeared the most
      suspicious, and I had to hold my tongue, to see suspicion creeping into the
      minds of those I loved best and respected, unable to justify myself or say
      one word! What I suffered Master alone knew. Think only (a case with
      Solovioff's at _____) I sick in my bed: a letter of his, an old letter
      received in London and torn up by me, rematerialized in my own sight, I
      looking at the thing. Five or six lines in the Russian language in Mahatma
      K. H.'s handwriting in blue, the words taken from my head, the letter old
      and crumpled travelling slowly alone (even I could not see the astral hand
      of the Chela performing the operation) across the bedroom, then slipping
      into and among Solovioff's papers who was writing in the little drawing-room
      correcting my manuscript, Olcott standing closely by him and having just
      handled the papers, looking over them with Solovioff, the latter finding it,
      and like a flash I see in his head in Russian the thought "The old impostor
      (meaning Olcott) must have put it there"! - and such things by hundreds.

      Well - this will do. I have told you the truth, the whole truth, and
      nothing but the truth, so far as I am allowed to give it. Many are the
      things I have no right to explain if I had to be hung for it. Now think for
      one moment. Suppose _____ receives an order from his Master to precipitate a
      letter to the _____ family, only a general idea being given to him about
      what he has to write. Paper and envelope are materialized before him, and he
      has only to form and shape the ideas into his English and precipitate them.
      What shall the result be? Why his English, his ethics and philosophy - his
      style all round. "A fraud, a transparent FRAUD!" people would cry out, and
      if any one happened to see such a paper before him or in his possession
      after it was formed, what should be the consequences?

      Another instance - I cannot help it, it is so suggestive. A man, now
      dead, implored me for three days to ask Master's advice on some business
      matter, for he was going to become a bankrupt and dishonor his family. A
      serious thing. He gave me a letter for Master "to send on." I went into the
      back parlor and he went down stairs to wait for the answer.

      Now to send on a letter two or three processes are used: (1) To put the
      envelope sealed on my forehead, and then, warning the Master to be ready for
      a communication, have the contents reflected by my brain carried off to His
      perception by the current formed by Him. This, if the letter is in a
      language I know; otherwise, if in an unknown tongue, (2) to unseal it, read
      it physically with my eyes, without understanding even the words, and that
      which my eyes see is carried off to Master's perception and reflected in it
      in His own language, after which, to be sure, no mistake is made. I have to
      burn the letter with a stone I have (matches and common fire would never
      do), and the ashes caught by the current become more minute than atoms would
      be, and are rematerialized at any distance where Master was.

      Well, I put the letter on the forehead opened, for it was in a language
      of which I know not one word, and when Master had seized its contents I was
      ordered to burn and send it on. It so happened that I had to go in my
      bedroom and get the stone there from a drawer it was locked in. That minute
      I was away, the addresser, impatient and anxious, had silently approached
      the door, entered the drawing-room, not seeing me there, and seen his own
      letter opened on the table. He was horror-struck, he told me later,
      disgusted, ready to commit suicide, for he was a bankrupt not only in
      fortune, but all his hopes, his faith, his heart's creed were crushed and
      gone. I returned, burnt the letter, and an hour after gave him the answer,
      also in his language. He read it with dull staring eyes, but thinking, as he
      told me, that if there were no Masters I was a Mahatma, did what he was
      told, and his fortune and honor were saved. Three days later he came to me
      and frankly told me all - did not conceal his doubts for the sake of
      gratitude, as others did - and was rewarded. By order of the Master I showed
      him how it was done and he understood it. Now had he not told me, and had
      his business gone wrong, advice notwithstanding, would not he have died
      believing me the greatest imposter on earth?

      So it goes.

      It is my heart's desire to be rid forever of any phenomena but my own
      mental and personal communication with Masters. I shall no more have
      anything to do whatever with letters or phenomenal occurrences. This I swear
      on Masters' Holy Names, and may write a circular letter to that effect.

      Please read the present to all, even to _____. FINIS all, and now
      Theosophists who will come and ask me to tell them so and so from Masters,
      may the Karma fall on their heads. I AM FREE. Master has just promised me
      this blessing !!

      Path, March, 1893 H. P. Blavatsky














      Dallas
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.