Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00399)

Paul offered a snippet of Marion Meade's writings:

>He does not, however, speak or write German, Punjabi, Hindi or
>Tibetan; his Latin is faulty, his Sanskrit non-existent, his
>French impeccable, his English queer.  He also has a habit of
>overlining his m's, a mannerism of Russians writing in English or
>French.  Although his letters are written in English, it is not
>the English of an educated Indian and they sometimes falter in
>the use of punctuation, spelling, and grammar.  For example, he
>inserted commas between subject and predicate.  Worse yet, K.H.
>is fond of American slang and his awkward sentence constructions
>lead one to believe he is thinking in French but translating his
>thoughts into English...[examples]
>
>K.H. is in semi-command of Western literature, science, and
>philosophy.  He quotes Shakespeare correctly, and Swift
>incorrectly, has a passing acquaintance with Thackeray, Tennyson
>and Dickens, and keeps au courant by reading English novels.  "My
>knowledge of your Western science is *very* limited," he insists,
>which does not prevent him from aiming barbs at Darwin, Edison,
>Tyndall, and some thirty others.  In personality, he was
>alternately witty, stern, cheerful, spiteful, highly idealistic,
>petty, and downright bitchy.  But he was always entertaining.

I've never read Meade's book but the passage Paul cites here is very
intriguing.  It asks the important question: WHY would a "Master" be so
contradictory, so full of human emotions, pursuits, and errors?  I often
wondered while reading THE MAHATMA LETTERS why, at times, the "Masters"
could be so downright crabby, snappy, and snippy.  And WHY would a "Master"
be interested in novels - granted, some of them are pretty spicy, but?? And
WHY would a "Master" be admittedly ignorant when it comes to Western
Science, but yet still believe that "he" is in a position to peg the faults
of Western Science?

Whether or not Meade has numerical errors (re: Daniel's questioning of the
number of people who claimed to see the "Masters) in her book does not
negate the importance of the questions/observations she brings to light
regarding a "Masters" inconsistency.  Meade appears here to be addressing
the very "character" of a "Master" - something that is very worthy of
up-close eyeballing.

As far as the pillow incident Daniel brought up - whether or not one has a
copy of the letter does not prove in any way that the actual "pillow event"
ever even occurred.  It is possible to have even the 'original' letter
while it still remaining possible that the "pillow event" was simply
constructed by a group of people who desperately desired, in some way, to
add credibility to their message (Theosophy).


Kym