Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00301)

Daniel:

"But I am far from being perfect hence infallible in all I do; tho' it is
not quite as you imagine having now discovered.  For you know - or think you
know, of *one* K.H. - and can know but of one, whereas there are two
distinct personages answering to that name *in him* you know.  The riddle is
only apparent and easy to solve, were you only to know what a real *Mahatma*
is." (ML LV)

N.B. "were you only to know what a real *Mahatma* is," you may think more
before emphasizing the former part of the quote, without mentioning the
latter part.


"Couple this with the unpleasant fact that we are forbidden to use one
particle of our powers in connexion with the *Eclectics* (for which you have
to thank your President and *him alone* - ) and that the little that is
done, is, so to say, smuggled in - and then syllogize *thusly*:-
"K.H. when writing to us *is not an adept.*
A *non*-adept - is fallible.
Therefore, K.H. may very easily commit mistakes;-
Mistakes of punctuation - that will often change entirely the whole sense of
a sentence; idiomatic mistakes - very likely to occur especially when
writing as hurriedly as I do; mistakes arising from occasional confusion of
terms that *I had to learn from you* - since it is *you* who are the author
of "rounds" - "rings" -"earthly rings" - etc., etc.  Now with all this, I
beg leave to say, that after having carefully read over and over our "Famous
Contradictions" myself; after giving them to be read to M.; and then to *a
high adept* whose powers are *not* in the Chohan's chancery sequestered by
Him to prevent him from squandering them upon the unworthy objects of his
personal predilections; after doing all this I was told by the latter the
following: "It is all perfectly correct.  Knowing what you mean, no more
than any other person acquainted with the doctrine, can I find in these
detached fragments anything that would really conflict with each other.
But, since many sentences are incomplete, and the subjects scattered about
without any order, I do not wonder that your "lay chelas" should find fault
with them. Yes; they do require a more explicit and clear exposition."" (ML
XXIVb)

N.B. "I do not wonder that your "lay chelas" (i.e., they are not lay chelas)
should find fault with them."
That is, the one's who say that the Mahatmas make errors and are not
infallible, without giving the larger explanation, are those who are not yet
lay chelas. They do not understand what Mahatmas are, otherwise they
wouldn't make the statements they do.  They tend to think that the error
can't possibley be theirs, so it must be the Mahatmas.

As the Mahatma writes, "tho' it is not quite as you imagine..."

Tony