Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00041)

<<<<<<JERRY: Steve, not every sentence in the MLs can be taken literally, or even seriously.

But why is there part of a Randolph book in a Mahatma letter, who wrote it there ?>>>>>

Brigitte, the answer is in how the MLs were constructed. Most of them were not written directly by any Masters at all, but rather by HPB when in telepathic contact with her Masters. So, while most of them could be valid, some of Blavatsky's unconscious came through along with the telepathic messages. The Randolph material could have come through unconsciously while in telepathic communication, as an automatic association process, and she may honestly not have been consciously aware of it.


<<<What me sincerrely interrests (theosophists seem to protest to that or don`t want to know these things) is, what are the sources of the Mahatma letters, of Blavatsky´s writings, how did her te teachings evolve, how did she herself evolve, and what did she herself practiced, or/and how she came to her views.
Brigitte>>>>

Most Theosophists really want to believe that every statement in the MLs is correct and accurate. Anyone familiar with Buddhism knows this to be a misguided belief, but most Theosophists don't study Buddhism except through Blavatsky, and don't want to be confused with the facts. While most of the MLs seem to me to be accurate, some is not. Probably the biggest fault that I can find is the silly notion that Buddha taught that we have some kind of permanent eternal Higher Self, while the truth is that he taught exactly the opposite. Buddha taught the anatman doctrine, which is the central core of his entire teaching. Theosophy applies this only to the ego or personality, whereas it is supposed to be applied to any sense of self, including the atma-buddhi monad and Buddha would not approve of us simply changing one self for another. Changing the lower self for the higher self is part of the Path, but the Path does not stop at that point.

Jerry S.

--