Theos-Talk Archives (March 2001 Message tt00039)

dalval14@earthlink.net wrote:
> I say so. In studying widely the writings of others I have found
> flaws of fact and of logic. I have also felt that in some cases
> the SOURCE writings have been obscured, if not distorted. But as
> this is an opinion I have not tried to make much of it, beyond
> issuing a kind of caution note, in my recommendations that we go
> to sources, however tedious it might be to repeat those
> statements.

Perhaps, although I was being a little simplistic originally (being
overly simplistic is an unavoidable problem with ALL Theosophical
writings), I can qualify my statement with my personal belief.

As far as I'm concerned, the writings of Blavatsky and the Mahatmas are
the PRIMARY source of Theosophy. There are many secondary sources,
however, particularly in the sciences. Secondary sources are useful in
interpreting the primary sources. Note, for example, we are missing half
the correspondence in the Mahatma letters. There are cases where the
statements of the Mahatmas are demonstrably incorrect (for example, in
their description of "potential energy"). One can come to three
conclusions: 

1) Since the Mahatmas are unerringly correct, the evidence of scientific
experiment must be incorrect.

2) The Mahatmas were wrong.

3) The Mahatmas used a definition of the TERM "potential energy" that
originated with Sinnett, and HE got it wrong. 

I tend to go with #3, and must admit that I have a problem with people
who go with #1. 

Bart Lidofsky