Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tt00007)

Robert Gilbert writes:

> 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.

In my opinion, this book by the Hare brothers was rationally
rebutted in a series of 12 articles or so by Dr.  H.N.  Stokes.
Please refer to the partial bibliography on the MLs posted to
theos-l and theos-talk.  A number of other rebuttals were
effectively made of the Hare book.  I myself have done extensive
research on the Hare Book and find that most of their criticism
is weak and the book is full of mistakes (I kid you not!!).  The
book is certainly an attack on the MLs but I think not the "most
devastating." Any one who reads the Hare book owes it to
himself/herself to read the various reviews and rebuttals of the
Hares' arguments before they make up their minds.

Gilbert writes:

> Arthur Lillie's forgotten pamphlet of 1883 deserves to be read
> and studied with care.

Actually the pamphlet was written and published in 1884.

Gilbert writes:

> 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]
>
> 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.

Although Lillie does make a few valid criticisms, he also makes
numerous assertions that are downright silly.

Readers should study Lillie's pamphlet for themselves but should
also consult OBSERVATIONS ON MR.  LILLIE'S "KOOT HOOMI UNVEILED."
by the President of the London Lodge of theTheosophical Society,
1884.  Also consult H.P.  Blavatsky's two articles in "Light"
magazine in August and October, 1884 in which she herself answers
and rebuts some of Mr.  Lillie's assertions.  Her first article
is titled: "Mr.  A.  Lillie's Delusions." See HPB's Collected
Writings, Volume VI, pp.  269-280 and pp.  288-294.  There are a
number of other sources that a serious inquirer into these issues
should consult in order to ascertain the validity of Mr.
Lillie's charges.  By all means, read Lillie but consult other
sources to have a balanced perspective.

Also notice that even Gilbert admits: "With hindsight it is
possible to point out the superficial nature of some of his
comments on Tibetan Buddhism.  .  .  ." Well, Lillie also made
"superficial" comments on many items pertaining to Theosophy and
to various historical/biographical items relating to HPB and the
Mahatmas.

Daniel H. Caldwell