John, you make an important observation
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
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
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....
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 common honesty, THE UNSEEN CORRESPONDENT [KOOT HOOMI] WHO WOULD
TOLERATE ONE SINGLE FRAUDULENT LINE IN HIS NAME, WOULD WINK AT AN
UNLIMITED REPETITION OF THE DECEPTION. . . .
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.
One such person was A.P. Sinnett.