Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tt00005)

I am posting these two Theos-l messages to Theos-talk since
readers of Theos-talk may find some of this of importance.
Daniel

> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:08:51 +0000
> From: "Dr A M Bain" <guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Blavatsky's frauds, the Hoax of the Mahatma Letters
>          and the Myth of the Masters
>
> > > The production of the letters has been discussed rather
> > > extensively and much of the evidence points out to the
> > > non-authenticity of the letters.  Many who have studied them
> > > suspect the direct hand of HPB in the production of certainly
> > > some of them.
> >
> > Dr.  Bain, could you please let us know your sources for these
> > statements? What evidence are you talking about? Could you give
> > us one or two GOOD EXAMPLES.
>
> You may have missed my saying that this controversy was something
> that I had heard about - which was why I for one was interested
> in answers.  I had hoped that theosphists on the list would be
> able to give *me* the sources etc.  that you are asking for.  I
> thus find myself in a position which, to me, seems somewhat
> ludicrous, in that the response I hoped to get from theos-l is
> *not* forthcoming, but local sources without internet
> connectivity *are* forthcoming, and I begin to wonder about the
> real value of this list as a theosophical forum.
>
> Still, no matter, I have asked locally about the sources you ask
> for, and am able to give you some provisional information.  Other
> data is in the process of being xeroxed prior to scanning for
> upload, so that readers can have chapter and verse.
>
> So, provisional sources are:
>
> ~Who Wrote The Mahatma Letters~ by H.E.  & W.L.  Hare, published
> by Williams & Norgate (London, UK) 1936.
>
> Article(s) by William Hare in ~The Occult Review~ around the same
> period.
>
> Extensive correspondence in ~Light~ from 1881 onwards.
>
> An article by Subba Row in (probably) Vol III of ~The Theosopist~
> circa 1883.
>
> "The Kiddle Letter" discussed also in ~The Theosophist~ a,d
> reproduced by Arthur Lillie in ~Koot Hoomi Unveiled~ (recently
> reprited in England.
>
> The above is from information supplied, but I shall be able to
> place the quote from the Arthur Lillie booklet on the web and the
> information concerning the letter itself on theos-l within 24
> hours.
>
> So far as I can tell from my informant, the majority of the work
> cited is unfavorable to the authenticity of the letters, but I
> hope at least to be able to quote parts of it on the list.  No
> doubt others will be able to do the same on the other side of an
> interesting historical matter.  Like yourself, I have no other
> interest in all of this except to establish, so far as one can
> this far removed from the events themselves, what the facts may
> be.  We proclaim that "There is no Religion higher than Truth" so
> why should we not be able to ask questions and get answers on
> subjects that clearly matter to many people, and which also, it
> would seem, have a direct bearing on the credibility of
> theosophical teachings themselves.
>
> Personally, I would not be over-perturbed if it were established
> that HPB wrote them all herself, as I believe some claim is the
> case.  The content of the letters is certainly of some worthwhile
> value whoever wrote them, and in the end, it is the message that
> counts, rather than the messenger.
>
> Anyhow, enough for now - more to follow.

> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:14:45 +0000
> From: "Dr A M Bain" <guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Mahatma Letters (Gilbert)
>
> PREFACE to Reprint of "Koot Hoomi Unveiled"
>
> by R.A.Gilbert
>
> All of the central tenets of Theosophy - as the term is
> understood within the Theosophical Society - are contained in The
> Mahatma Letters, which were transmitted to A.P.  Sinnett and
> others between 1880 and 1884.  Extracts from the letters were
> published by Sinnett in The Occult World (1881) and Esoteric
> Buddhism (1883) but they were not published in their entirety
> until 1923 when A.T.  Barker issued them as The Mahatma Letters
> to A.P.  Sinnett.  The letters provide an effective source-book
> for the doctrines elaborated in H.P.  Blavatsky's The Secret
> Doctrine (1888) and espoused by the great majority of latter-day
> theosophists, but the origin of the letters remains problematic.
>
> Sinnett believed that they were miraculously 'precipitated',
> travelling thousands of miles to reach him in India or England
> from the Mahatmas' home in Tibet.  Others remained sceptical,
> arguing that the letters were not only delivered by Mme.
> Blavatsky but also composed and written by her.  The battle-lines
> are still drawn up, with believers and sceptics hurling a steady
> stream of invective at each other and rarely supporting their
> positions by rational argument.  Perhaps the most sober defence
> has been offered by Geoffrey Barborka in The Mahatmas and their
> Letters (1973), while the most devastating attack upon the
> supernatural origin of both the letters and their authors is Who
> Wrote the Mahatma Letters?, by H.E.  & W.L.  Hare (1936) - a
> critique which has yet to be rationally rebutted.
>
> Arguing over the source of the letters may seem pointless if one
> considers that the real issue is the spiritual merit, or
> otherwise, of their content.  But spiritual truths are not best
> served if they are disseminated by fraud, and it is as well to
> establish the truth about the origin of the letters (insofar as
> it can ever be fully known) if we are to judge the contents on
> their value as spiritual philosophy.  For this reason, if for no
> other, Arthur Lillie's forgotten pamphlet of 1883 deserves to be
> read and studied with care.
>
> At the time of its publication Koot Hoomi Unveiled was attacked
> with vitriolic abuse but with precious little reason, and
> Lillie's strictures have remained largely unanswered.  With
> hindsight it is possible to point out the superficial nature of
> some of his comments on Tibetan Buddhism, but his critics
> necessarily used the same texts and commentaries as were
> available to him and their counter arguments thus carry very
> little weight.
>
> Such ripostes as they did make were fully answered in Lillie's
> long letter justifying his case that appeared in the journal
> Light in August, 1884, and which is reprinted here.  [Text
> available - AB]
>
> It should also be borne in mind that Arthur Lillie was neither an
> hysterical defender of the claims of Spiritualism against those
> of Theosophy, nor an unthinking, fundamentalist Christian
> opponent of 'Esoteric Buddhism'.  He was a sound scholar with a
> profound knowledge of, and sympathy for, the Buddhist religion.
> From 1883 to 1912 he produced a series of scholarly works on the
> life of the Buddha and on Buddhist and Vedantist influences upon
> both early Christianity and classical Greece.  He was a Member of
> the Royal Asiatic Society, in whose library his books are still
> to be found.  On a more popular level he wrote brief biographies
> of mystics and other esoteric writers, ranging from Boehme and
> Swedenborg to Stainton Moses and Madame Blavatsky.
>
> While he clearly rejected the ideas of H.P.B.  he remained
> scrupulously objective when he wrote his studies of her, and his
> views on the Mahatma letters deserve careful consideration -
> whether or not we agree with them.
>
> Indeed, it is only by emulating Lillie's meticulous attention to
> detail that we shall be able to arrive at a true understanding of
> the origin and nature of the Mahatma letters, and only then can
> we truly be said to have stood firm by the motto of the
> Theosophical Society: 'There is no Religion higher than Truth.'
>
> R.A. GILBERT
>
> Bristol, September 1995