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

John, you make an important observation

Expand Messages
  • danielhcaldwell
    John, You make this important observation: ============================================================== What is important to me here is whether or not this
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 17, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      You make this important observation:

      What is important to me here is whether or not this statement By
      Master K.H. is a true representation of the Doctrine they possess and
      and have been taught themselves, and so teach others, including

      You have hit the nail on the head!!

      That is also my thinking on the subject.

      There have been and are different Theosophical students
      who have certain beliefs or have made certain assumptions, etc. and
      certain statements in one Mahatma letter or another
      don't accord with their belief or assumption.

      Therefore said student declares statement as phoney or not from KH or
      distorted by HPB, etc.

      There is a long history of this.

      For example, Sinnett didn't like certain statements in the letters
      such as what Master KH says about life after death, therefore the
      real KH couldn't have written or taught that. HPB distorted the true
      teaching. So thought Sinnett.

      Col. Olcott didn't like what Master Morya dictated to HPB in that
      famous Prayag letter, so it couldn't of been from the real Morya so
      HPB must have been mediumistic on this occasion and distorted the
      real message.This was Olcott's "reasoning."

      Many more examples could be given including Jake's "phoney" letter
      and Sveinn's Letter No. 88 "that should not have been issued and
      designated to master K.H."

      If you list all the Mahatma letters that different students over the
      years didn't agree with and who concluded that these particular
      letters are phoney, etc., you probably end up throwing away half of
      the letters!

      Now I'm not suggesting that any of these students don't have the
      right to do this.... but as an "outside" student and observer I
      really wonder if this is the way to go about studying the letters or
      the teachings.

      Some of the teachings I don't necessarily even understand but I
      always ask myself, whose fault is that? I would suspect that fault
      lies with me.

      Over the years I have read various statements by HPB or KH which on
      first reading didn't make any sense to me. I would even say to
      myself, "that can't be true." But further study, etc. showed me that
      I simply didn't know enough at the time to make an accurate

      Also consider what HPB herself wrote on this very subject under

      My dear Mr. Sinnett,

      It is very strange that you should be ready to deceive yourself so
      willingly....Now you have and are deceiving, in vulgar parlance,
      bamboozling yourself about the letter received by me yesterday from
      the Mahatma. The letter is from Him, whether written through a chela
      or not; and -- perplexing as it may seem to you, contradictory
      and "absurd," it is the full expression of his feelings and he
      maintains what he said in it. For me it is surpassingly strange that
      you should accept as His only that which dovetails with your own
      feelings, and reject all that contradicts your own notions of the
      fitness of things....you imagine, or rather force yourself to imagine
      that the Mahatma's letter is not wholly orthodox and was written by a
      chela to please me....
      Quoted from:

      Or what she later wrote:

      ....We have been asked by a correspondent why he should
      not "be free to suspect some of the so-called 'precipitated' letters
      as being forgeries," giving as his reason for it that while some of
      them bear the stamp of (to him) undeniable genuineness, others seem
      from their contents and style, to be imitations. This is equivalent
      to saying that he has such an unerring spiritual insight as to be
      able to detect the false from the true, though he has never met a
      Master, nor been given any key by which to test his alleged
      communications. The inevitable consequence of applying his untrained
      judgment in such cases, would be to make him as likely as not to
      declare false what was genuine, and genuine what was false. Thus what
      criterion has any one to decide between one "precipitated" letter, or
      another such letter? Who except their authors, or those whom they
      employ as their amanuenses (the chelas and disciples), can tell?....

      Thus the non-adept recipient is left in the dilemma of uncertainty,
      whether, if one letter is false, all may not be; for, as far as
      intrinsic evidence goes, all come from the same source, and all are
      brought by the same mysterious means. But there is another, and a far
      worse condition implied. For all that the recipient of "occult"
      letters can possibly know, and on the simple grounds of probability

      And earlier in the same article HPB observed:

      ....Such persons readily persuade themselves that later teachings,
      received from exactly the same source as earlier ones, are either
      false or have been tampered with by chelas, or even third parties.

      And HPB ends the article with this important point:

      The whole difficulty springs from the common tendency to draw
      conclusions from insufficient premises, and play the oracle before
      ridding oneself of that most stupefying of all psychic anæsthetics--
      Quoted from: Lucifer, October 1888.
      Caps added.

      One such person was A.P. Sinnett.

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