Theos-Talk Archives (March 2001 Message tt00031)

Thanks for the sources. Some comments:

Blavatsky Archives wrote:
> when you write that "the Mahatmas didn't have it [the 'secret doctrine']."
> "Our [secret?] doctrine knows no compromises. It either affirms or denies,
> for it never teaches but that which it knows to be the truth." Letter 10

They are clearly aware of its existence.

> "We do not bow our heads in the dust before the mystery of mind -- for we
> have solved it ages ago." Letter 10

Which means they know some things. For example, they have verified the
laws of the universe, but not beyond the edge of the solar system; they
assume that the laws continue beyond that. In Letter 22:

> "So far -- WE KNOW. Within and to the utmost limit, to the very edge of
> the cosmic veil

Which they identified in the previous paragraph as the edge of the
solar system. 

> we know the fact to be correct -- owing to personal experience;



> "From the first ages of man, the fundamental truths of all that we are permitted
> to know on earth was in the safe keeping of the adepts of the sanctuary.
> Those guardians of the primitive divine revelation, who had solved every
> problem that is within the grasp of human intellect, were bound together
> by a universal freemasonry of science and philosophy, which formed one unbroken
> chain around the globe." HPB, ISIS I 37-38

Well, the Mahatmas did say that the Maha-Chohan knew far more than they
did (which means that they do not know all there is to know). For
example, K.H. in letter 9 (18 in the chronological book) is unable to
"avoid feeling myself - uncomfortably so - like of worm of yesterday
before our "Rock of Ages," my Cho-Khan."

> "Believe me, there comes a moment in the life of an adept, when the hardships
> he has passed through are a thousandfold rewarded. In order to acquire further
> knowledge, he has no more to go through a minute and slow process of investigation
> and comparison of various objects, but is accorded an instantaneous, implicit
> insight into every first truth. . . . the adept sees and feels and lives
> in the very source of all fundamental truths -- the Universal Spiritual
> Essence of Nature, SHIVA the Creator, the Destroyer, and the Regenerator."
> Letter 31

Note that they do not say that they, themselves, have reached it. 

In any case, we cannot take the Mahatma Letters as infallible
statements of the truth; K.H. admits to carelessness in Letter #65 (136
chronological), when he apologizes, admitting, "I would never have
allowed the passage to pass; nor the "Lal Sing" either foolishly
invented as a half a nom de plume by Djual K. and carelessly allowed by
me to take root without thinking of the consequences. We are not
infallible, all-foreseeing "Mahatmas" at every hour of the day."

In letter #55 (#130 Chrono), KH writes: "even an "adept" when acting in
his body is not beyond mistakes due to human carelessness."

Now, let's take the statement, "To be true, religion and philosophy
must offer the solution of every problem." (View of the Chohan on the
TS). Yet, the Mahatmas disagree on whether or not the Theosophical
Society will be effective.

In letter #11 (#65 Chrono), KH points out that there is disagreement on
the part of the Mahatmas on whether or not the Theosophical Society will
be effective; "But I am but one and you are many, and none of my fellow
Brothers with the exception of M. will help me in this work".

My point is not that the Mahatmas knew NOTHING, or that Ramtha is as
good a source as they are. My point is that if even they were fallible,
then those who came after them were certainly so, yet we should be
careful about taking their works as the absolute truth.

Bart Lidofsky